^^ofTr^s 


4?0t06ICAL  SE^"$^ 


^c 


~ 


14-18 
3\Z 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

ITS    LITERARY    STRUCTURE 
AND   DIDACTIC   PURPOSE 


A  Lecture  delivered  at  Wellesi.ey  College  May  20,  1901 
am'  subsequently  revised  and  enlarged  with  the 

addition  oe  tlikee  appendices 

Adapted  to  exhibit  by  Analytical  and  Synthetic 

Criticism  the  Nature  and  Interconnection 

of  the  Greater  Discourses  of  Jesus 


by 


BENJAMIN    W.    BACON,  D.D. 

Buckingham  Professor  of  New  Testament  Criticism  and 
Exegesis  in  Yale  University 


Krto  gorfc 
THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

LONDON:   MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Ltd. 
1902 

Ail  rights  rcseritd 


Copyright,  1902, 
By  THE  MACMILLAN   COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped  March,  1902. 


Norfooot)  $rf8S 

J.  S.  Cushinp;  &  Co  —  Berwkk  k  Smith 
Norwoud  Mass.  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

Teachers  of  biblical  science  are  increas- 
ingly conscious  of  the  need  of  a  text-book 
of  the  higher  criticism.  This  method  is  no 
longer  an  experiment.  The  New  Testa- 
ment, the  Gospels  above  all,  can  be  inter- 
preted, as  they  have  been  in  the  past, 
without  it ;  but  the  modern  teacher  who 
is  ignorant  on  this  score  is  justly  consid- 
ered incompetent.  Baleful  or  beneficent, 
it  must  be  understood. 

Moreover,  the  discourses  of  Jesus  furnish 
a  problem  that  nothing  else  has  solved  and 
to  which  these  methods  must  inevitably  be 
applied.  No  scholar  has  ever  attempted 
the  construction  of  a  gospel  harmony  with- 
out again  and  again  being  compelled  to 
resort  to  expedients  which  do  not  repre- 
sent the  real  meaning  of  his  authorities. 
No  student  has  ever  penetrated  beneath 
the  surface  of  a  "  harmony  "  without  dis- 


vi  Preface 

covering  again  and  again  that  the  osten- 
sible process  is  most  inconsistently  and 
half-heartedly  applied.  In  short,  our  four 
authorities  all  differ  in  their  form,  order, 
occasion,  and  connection  of  these  sayings, 
the  most  precious  pearls  of  all  literature. 
What  else  can  one  do  than  compare  and 
test  and  try,  sifting  the  evidence,  reaching 
back  behind  the  reporters  toward  their 
authorities,  back  to  the  original  utterances 
themselves  ?  And  the  methods  for  so 
doing  must  be  approved  and  systematized. 
To  say  this  is  to  say  that  any  impartial, 
sincere  effort  to  furnish  an  example  of 
these  methods  in  application  must  be  wel- 
comed if  prepared  with  reasonable  qualifi- 
cation for  the  task. 

Such  is  the  purpose  of  the  present  vol- 
ume. Its  nucleus  is  simply  a  lecture  pre- 
pared for  delivery  at  Wellesley  College, 
Massachusetts,  by  the  condensation  of  six 
lectures  previously  delivered  to  the  adult 
Bible  class  of  the  United  Church,  New 
Haven.  Ultimate  publication  was  prom- 
ised on  the  first  occasion  to  those  who 
asked  opportunity  to  obtain  them  in  print, 


Preface  vii 

but  the  matter  was  delayed.  At  Wellesley 
similar  requests  followed  the  delivery  of 
the  lecture  and  were  met  by  a  renewal 
of  the  promise.  In  endeavoring  to  fulfil 
it  the  author  has  become  convinced  that 
this  is  the  opportunity  for  meeting,  so  far 
as  he  is  able,  the  larger  need  already 
spoken  of.  The  lecture  itself  is  printed 
substantially  as  delivered,  though  not  with- 
out considerable  additions,  as  well  as  foot- 
notes. But  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
results  could  be  presented  by  this  means 
only  in  outline,  in  a  simple,  semi-popular 
way.  Processes  and  evidences  lay  sub- 
merged. For  the  purposes  of  a  text-book, 
however  simple,  it  was  needful  to  supple- 
ment this  general  exposition  of  the  process 
and  results  by  appendices  devoted  to  an 
exhibition  in  somewhat  greater  detail  of 
the  methods  and  evidences.  Accordingly, 
three  appendices  have  been  added  to  the 
lecture,  the  first  mainly  analytical,  justify- 
ing the  transpositions  of  material  effected 
in  the  lecture  to  restore  the  original  Dis- 
course on  the  Higher  Righteousness,  by 
comparison  of  the  two  principal  reporters, 


viii  Preface 

Matthew  and  Luke.  The  second  appendix 
aims  only  to  justify  the  choice  of  readings, 
as  between  authorities,  for  the  material 
admitted  as  forming  part  of  the  Discourse. 
The  third  exemplifies  the  possibility  of 
synthetic  criticism  in  the  restoration  of 
some  of  the  great  discourses  of  Jesus, 
using  nothing  for  the  purpose  outside  the 
limits  of  the  material  wrongly  connected 
by  Matthew  or  Luke  with  the  Discourse 
on  the  Higher  Righteousness,  as  evidenced 
by  the  processes  shown  in  Appendix  I. 

Completeness  of  treatment  from  this 
point  of  view  would  of  course  require  much 
more.  At  least  the  great  parabolic  dis- 
courses, particularly  that  of  Mk.  iv.  and 
parallels,  would  have  to  be  included,  if  not 
a  discussion  of  the  entire  body  of  discourse 
material  attributed  to  Jesus  by  the  synoptic 
evangelists.  But  this  field  is  fortunately 
by  no  means  neglected.  Wendt's  Lehre 
Jesu  has  been  followed  by  Julicher's  great 
work,  Die  Gleiclinissrcdcn  Jcsu,  with  ample 
discussion  of  the  characteristic  features  of 
Jesus'  teaching,  and  every  treatise  on  New 
Testament  theology  has  at  least  a  chapter 


Preface  ix 

on  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Those  of  Weiss 
and  Beyschlag  are  fortunately  accessible  to 
English  readers,  though  Holtzmann  has  not 
yet  found  a  translator.  Professor  George 
B.  Stevens's  recent  treatise  gives  the  Eng- 
lish reader  discussion  at  first  hand.  Our 
object  is  much  more  limited.  Since  it  had 
necessarily  become  one  of  the  main  con- 
tentions of  our  address  that  the  longer, 
connected  discourses  attributed  to  Jesus 
by  our  synoptic  evangelists,  of  which  the 
so-called  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  the  prin- 
cipal example,  are  not  compositions  of  the 
evangelists,  nor  even  in  all  cases  the  result 
of  mere  agglutination  in  the  formative 
period  of  the  gospels,  it  seemed  well  to 
supplement  the  principal  example  of  a 
connected  discourse,  which  certainly  ante- 
dates our  canonical  gospels,  by  others 
which  similarly  might  be  regarded  as  ex- 
amples of  the  preaching'  of  Jesus  as  distinct 
from  the  mere  apophthegms,  parables,  or 
sayings.  A  double  purpose  is  subserved 
when  the  examples  given  embody  the  same 
material  which  our  analysis  reveals  to  have 
been  mistakenly  attached  to  the  Discourse 


x  Preface 

on  the  Higher  Righteousness;  for  the 
synthesis  will  then  corroborate  the  analy- 
sis. The  appended  notes  will  at  least 
illustrate  the  nature  of  the  problem  which 
confronts  the  would-be  biographer,  as  he 
endeavors  by  synthetic  methods  to  ascer- 
tain the  circumstances,  occasion,  and  con- 
nection of  these  discourses. 

Finally,  it  may  do  no  harm  to  reiterate 
that  fascinating  as  are  the  problems  of 
source-analysis,  particularly  the  conjectural 
restoration  of  the  Logia  (a  problem  dis- 
tinct from  the  present,  which  goes  quite 
behind  the  question  of  literary  criticism 
regarding  documentary  sources,  however 
primitive,  to  that  of  historical  criticism, 
What  did  Jesus  say  ?),  the  benefit  of  en- 
gaging in  these  studies  is  not  merely, 
perhaps  not  mainly,  in  the  direct  ends 
achieved,  but  in  the  resultant  acquirement 
of  familiarity  with  the  incomparable  say- 
ings of  Jesus  themselves,  discriminating  ap- 
preciation of  their  exact  original  sense,  and 
historical  understanding  of  their  relation 
to  his  sublime  career.  Let  all  other  results 
be  null,  and  the  insight  attained  in  these 


Preface  xi 

ways  by  comparing  logion  with  logion,  re- 
port with  report,  will  a  thousandfold  repay 
the  effort ;  for  no  study  of  commentaries 
can  compare  with  this  method  for  elucida- 
tion of  the  real  meaning. 

Needless  to  say  the  application  of  such 
criticism  involves  no  disrespect  to  our 
evangelists.  That  wherein  Luke  himself 
sets  the  example  (Lk.  i.  1-4)  is  not  impi- 
ous. That  which  meets  our  Lord's  own 
teaching  as  to  true  searching  of  the  Scrip- 
tures (Jn.  v.  39-40;  [R.V.]  xvi.  13-14) 
would  not  give  offence  to  those  whose 
whole  effort  was  to  convey  to  us  the  story 
"  even  as  delivered  to  them  by  those  which 
from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and 
ministers  of  the  word,"  that  we  might  "be- 
lieve that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  and  believing  might  have  life  through 
his  name."  If  in  other  departments  of 
biblical  study  the  use  of  these  methods 
may  seem  inevitably  to  involve  the  over- 
throw of  traditional  theories  regarding  the 
authorship  of  various  writings  and  the 
infallible  accuracy  of  the  writers,  here  no 
such  assumptions  are  permissible.     No  one 


xii  Preface 

claims  that  we  have  the  sayings  in  the 
form  or  connection  in  which  they  were 
uttered.  No  one  claims  that  here  we  have 
an  original  unit,  which  the  pitiless  critic 
aches  to  dissect.  Here  the  disjecta  mem- 
bra are  the  original  datum.  Analysis  can 
scarcely  go  further  than  a  simple  placing 
of  the  four  gospels  side  by  side  already 
carries  it,  and  as  it  was  already  acknowl- 
edged to  be  when  Luke  set  himself  the 
difficult  task  "  to  write  them  clown  in 
order."  The  work  of  the  critic  here  is 
restoration.  His  method  must  be,  if  only 
for  the  sake  of  his  science,  to  think  him- 
self to  the  utmost  into  the  atmosphere  and 
circumstances,  yes,  above  all,  into  the  spirit 
and  ideals  and  feeling  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth. If  there  be  prejudice  among  Chris- 
tian people  against  the  training  of  students 
in  colleges  and  seminaries  in  such  a  method, 
we  can  await  its  disappearance  with  the 
patience  which  knows  it  cannot  be  long 
disappointed. 

B.  W.  B. 

New  Haven, 
December,  1901. 


CONTENTS 


PREFACE 


LECTURE.  The  Discourse  of  Jesus  on  the  New 
Law  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  considered 
with  regard  to  its  literary  structure  and 
Didactic  Purpose l 

APPENDIX  A.    Analysis  of  the  Discourse  as 

REPORTED    BY    OUR    EVANGELISTS,   WITH   A    VIEW 
TO   ASCERTAINING  THE    ORIGINAL   OCCASION    AND 

Context    of  the    Elements  of  Extraneous 
Origin I21 

APPENDIX    B.     Comparison    of    Readings    for 

Reconstruction  of  the  Discourse  .        .        .     175 

APPENDIX  C.  Reconstruction  of  the  More 
Important  Synagogue  Discourses  of  Jesus 
from  which  Elements  would  appear  to  have 

BEEN   ADDED   BY   OUR   EVANGELISTS  TO  THE   SER- 
MON on  the  Mount *8i 

INDEX  TO   SCRIPTURE   PASSAGES   .        .        .259 


THE   SERMON  ON  THE  MOUNT 

A   STUDY   IN   SYNTHETIC    CRITICISM   OF 
THE  GREATER  DISCOURSES  OF  JESUS 

I  congratulate  myself  and  my  hearers 
on  the  subject  whose  selection  we  owe  in 
part  to  others.  The  average  thoughtful 
man,  if  asked  to  define  the  representative 
teaching  of  Jesus,  will  reply  instinctively, 
"The  Sermon  on  the  Mount." 

The  Bible  is  Christo-centric,  whether 
our  theology  be  so  or  not.  We  may  go 
further.  Human  thought  and  literature 
in  its  loftiest  sphere,  our  relation  to  the 
unseen  Source  and  Goal  of  all,  are  Christo- 
centric.  An  impartial  historical  estimate 
will  admit  that  Jesus'  life  and  teachings 
constitute  the  highest  revelation  of  man  to 
himself,  and  since  "the  invisible  things  of 

the   creation    are    perceived    through   the 

i 

B  I 


2  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

things  that  are  made,"  this  revelation  is 
also  the  highest  of  God  to  man.  Thus  in 
our  ultimate  questionings  the  light  shed  by 
him  is  "the  light  of  the  world." 

So  then,  if  there  be  anything  in  litera- 
ture worth  studying,  it  is  his  thought  on 
these  subjects;  and  "study"  implies,  in 
our  day,  the  genetic  method.  We  must 
appreciate  Jesus  in  relation  to  his  times ; 
we  must  take  what  we  know  of  him  in  the 
perspective  of  human  thought  and  histor- 
ical event,  which  leads  up  to  him  and  down 
from  him.  And  when  it  comes  to  actual, 
direct  knowledge,  we  must  come  into  touch 
with  him  by  what  he  says  himself,  rather 
than  by  what  any  one  says  about  him. 
Paul,  the  evangelists,  are  but  "  ministers 
through  whom  we  believe  " ;  their  appre- 
ciation of  him  whom  they  knew  so  much 
better  than  we  is  our  indispensable  means 
of  approach  —  but  only  a  means.  Never 
do  they  render  us  so  great  service  as  when 
they  transmit  to  us  unaltered,  uncolored  by 
application  to  the  exigencies  of  their  own 


Tbe  Sermon  on  the  Mount  3 

situation,  the  remembered  words  of  Jesus 
himself.  Then  we  can  say,  with  the  men 
of  Sychar,  "  Now  we  believe,  not  because 
of  thy  word,  for  we  have  heard  him  our- 
selves, and  know  that  this  is  indeed  the 
Saviour  of  the  world." 

And  in  turning  thus  to  the  most  direct 
means  of  approach,  it  is  natural,  too,  that 
men  should  not  go  to  that  gospel  which  is, 
by  common  consent  of  ancient  and  modern 
times,  the  latest  in  date,  however  well  it 
may  deserve  in  one  sense  the  title,  "  heart 
of  Christ."  For  in  it,  to  an  incomparably 
greater  degree,  the  teachings  of  the  Master 
are  digested  and  assimilated  to  the  evange- 
list's own  thought.  In  John  we  find  a  selec- 
tion of  the  doctrines  of  Jesus  elaborated, 
adapted  to  meet  the  special  erroneous  ten- 
dencies of  theosophic  speculation  at  the 
end  of  the  century  in  proconsular  Asia. 
We  must  go  rather  to  that  which,  by 
equally  universal  consent,  emanates  from 
the  soil  of  Palestine,  and,  if  not  itself 
apostolic,  at  least  embodies  an  indisputably 


4  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

apostolic  collection  of  Sayings  of  the  Lord, 
the  Logia,  as  critics  designate  the  work. 
The  vast  majority  of  competent  scholars 
hold,  indeed,  that  this  primitive  writing, 
described  in  about  125  a.d.  as  a  collection 
of  Sayings  of  the  Lord  in  Hebrew,  and 
dated  by  the  church  fathers  of  the  second 
century,  with  the  full  approval  of  modern 
critics,  in  the  middle  sixties,  is  only  the 
discourse  nucleus  of  our  so-called  "  Mat- 
thew," while  the  average  layman  naturally 
makes  no  distinction  between  this  and  our 
canonical  Matthew.  But  in  either  case, 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  the  heart  of 
it;  so  that  the. instinctive  answer  of  lay- 
man and  critic  alike  to  the  question,  How 
shall  one  come  into  most  direct  relation 
with  the  Man  of  Nazareth  through  his 
own  words?  will  here  be  simply,  Study 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

There  is  an  additional  appropriateness 
of  the  subject  in  our  case.  This  lecture 
comes,  if  I  mistake  not,  as  the  conclusion 
of  a  course  of  study  in  biblical  literature. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  5 

You  have  doubtless  followed  the  provi- 
dential development  of  Israel's  religious 
ideas,  that  were  ultimately  to  impregnate 
the  world,  until  at  the  opening  of  our  era 
their  entire  content,  whether  priestly  or 
prophetic,  had  come  into  formal  concen- 
tration in  the  Law  —  the  divine,  sacred 
Torah,  the  one  perfect  revelation,  as  Israel 
esteemed  it,  of  the  will  and  character  of 
God.  There  lay  all  the  choicest  product 
of  the  human  thought  of  indefinite  past 
centuries,  as  alternately  suggested  by  the 
voice  of  God  within,  and  pruned  and  cor- 
rected by  the  providence  of  God  without. 
There  it  lay,  as  the  seeds  of  the  coming 
springtime  lie  hid  in  the  hard,  dry  seed- 
pod  through  the  storms  and  frosts  of 
winter.  The  new  religion  was  not  new. 
Never  did  Jesus  or  his  followers  consent 
to  be  regarded  as  introducing  a  new 
religion.  They  were  interpreters,  not  in- 
novators;  reformers,  not  iconoclasts.  Mat- 
thew attaches  to  the  opening  and  fun- 
damental   proposition    of    the    great    dis- 


6  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

course,  as  he  gives  it,  two  sayings,  which, 
even  if  we  place  them  elsewhere  *  (partly 
on  the  authority  of  Luke,  who  gives  the 
first  in  other  context),  may  well  be  authen- 
tic, and  in  any  case  reflect  as  clearly  as 
they  do  accurately  the  genuine  conserva- 
tism of  Jesus.  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
until  heaven  and  earth  fail  not  one  iota, 
nor  turn  of  a  letter  shall  fail  from  the  law 
till  all  come  to  pass."  This  is  the  first, 
illustrating  Jesus'  respect  for  the  revela- 
tion of  the  past.  And  as  to  the  relative 
value  of  the  work  of  destructive  vs.  con- 
structive teaching  Matthew  adds  a  second : 
"  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall '  loose  '  [show 
not  to  be  binding]  one  of  these  least 
commandments,  and  teach  men  so  [a  nec- 
essary work  since  otherwise  its  performer 
would  not  be  'in  the  kingdom,'  but  one 
least  worthy  of  all  to  be  coveted],  shall  be 
called  least  in  the  Kingdom  of  God.  But 
whoso  shall  do  and  teach  them,  he  shall 

*  See  Analytical  Notes,  Appendix  A  (4),  p.  133,  and 
compare  Beyschlag,  New  Test.  T/ieol.,  I,  p.  no. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  7 

be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  God."  * 
Jesus,  then,  conceived  the  new  as  the 
fruitage,  the  glorification,  the  trans- 
figuration of  the  old.  And  that  gospel, 
which,  as  we  saw,  most  clearly  reflects  the 
standpoint  of  Jesus'  own  age  and  people, 
distinctly  gives  expression  to  this  concep- 
tion, not  merely  in  its  repeated  citation 
of  Jesus'  teachings  to  this  effect,  but  by 
the  fact  that  it  begins  the  entire  story  of 
his  public  career  by  the  great  discourse 
we  are  to  study,  conspicuously  placing 
the  Mount  of  Beatitudes  over  against  the 
Mount  of  the  Law,  and  by  the  whole 
arrangement  of  the  material  indicating 
that  this  is  to  be  considered  what  Paul 
calls  the  "  Law  of  Christ,"  what  James, 
that  other  Hebrew  of  Hebrews  among 
New  Testament  writers,  speaks  of  as  "  the 
perfect  law,"  a  mirror  of  moral  perfection, 
"the  law  of  liberty,"  "the  royal  law," 
that  is,  the  law  of  those  who  are  children 
of  the  King. 

*  See  Text  Critical  Notes,  Appendix  A,  p.  128. 


8  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

Pardon  me  if  I  dwell  for  a  moment  on 
the  fact ;  for  it  is  not  a  mere  coincidence 
that  our  study  of  Israel's  Law,  the  out- 
come of  its  ages  of  development  in  reli- 
gious thought,  should  conclude  with  that 
which  to  the  view  of  a  Jewish  evangelist 
constitutes  the  corresponding  element  of 
Jesus'  teaching.  It  is  of  importance  in 
the  method  of  study  I  propose  to  apply, 
whether  this  view  of  the  evangelist  is  a 
mere  fancy  of  his  own,  or  whether  Jesus 
himself  actually  framed  a  discourse  hav- 
ing this  character  of  the  Renovation  of  the 
Law.  I  dwell  on  the  question  partly 
because  very  excellent  scholars  have 
strenuously  denied  it ;  *  partly  because  if 
we  can  establish  the  probability  of  an 
actual  discourse  carefully  and  deliberately 
prepared  by  him  from  this  point  of  view, 
we    shall   have    in    our  hands    the  master 

*  E.g.  Oscar  Iloltzmann  in  his  Leben  Jesti,  1901. 
See  per  contra  II.  J.  Iloltzmann  in  his  Neutesll.  Thel., 
p.  131  :  Das  gesetzliche  Judenthum  bietet  den  positiven 
wie  negativen  Ankniipfungspunkt  der  Predigt  Jesu. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  9 

key  to  many  problems  regarding  the  vari- 
ous types  of  early  Christian  apprehension 
of  the  gospel,  Pauline,  Jacobean,  Johannine, 
their  relation  to  one  another  and  to  their 
common  authority.  And  this  is  of  the 
utmost  importance,  because  these  are  the 
channels,  and  the  only  channels,  by  which 
the  gospel  itself  is  transmitted  to  us. 

Let  us  first  do  full  justice  to  the  ob- 
jector. He  points  to  the  fact  that  in 
Luke,  the  Pauline  evangelist,  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  in  every  instance 
lacks  those  elements  which  in  Matthew 
give  it  the  distinctive  character  of  a  new 
Torah,  a  standard  of  righteousness  (ethi- 
cal and  religious)  offsetting  the  right- 
eousness of  scribes  and  Pharisees.  He 
justly  maintains  that  we  must  look  to 
Paul,  the  radical  opponent  of  legalism 
as  legalism,  no  matter  how  high  the 
standard,  as  truly  reflecting  the  spirit  of 
Jesus.  The  Palestinian  mother-church, 
wedded  as  it  was  to  its  Judaistic  particu- 
larism, and  chary  of   the  prerogatives  of 


10  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

the  seed  of  Abraham  according  to  the 
flesh,  chief  among  which  was  the  hav- 
ing been  "entrusted  with  the  oracles  of 
God,"  was  slow  to  appreciate  that  the 
new  wine  must  have  new  bottles.  Our 
objector  argues  that  the  conception  of 
Christianity  as  a  nova  lex  was  charac- 
teristic of  the  early  catholic  fathers, 
among  whom  it  appears  as  a  recrudes- 
cence of  Judaism  in  Christian  form. 
And  if  a  conception  be  meant  which 
treats  the  gospel  exclusively  or  even 
predominantly  as  a  nova  lex,  it  is  rightly 
designated  post-Pauline.  After  the  death 
of  Paul,  the  plain  and  easy  notion  of 
legalism  crept  back.  Religion  became 
again  a  matter  of  requirement  and  reward. 
The  quid  pro  quo  system,  by  which  scrib- 
ism  had  caricatured  the  Old  Testament 
into,  You  do  this  for  God,  and  God  will 
do  what  you  want  for  you,  returned  to 
power.*      This     tendency    in     the     early 

*  Cf.  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Neutestl.  Theol.,y.  158:  Selbst 
die    entschiedenen    Worte    [Jesu],   welche    die    letztcn 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  11 

church  consciously  to  undo  the  work  of 
Paul  we  may  designate  neo-legalism.  And 
it  had  historical  reality.  We  must  grant  to 
the  objector  that  even  our  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew already  shows  traces  of  the  tendency, 
as  when  borrowing  from  Mk.  10:  17-31  the 
story  of  the  rich  Pharisee  who  asked  Jesus 
what  good  work  he  must  do,*  it  removes 

Tage  brachten,  Tempelsturz  und  neuer  Bund,  ver- 
mochten  in  dem  Bewusstsein  der  Urgemeinde  den 
Eindruck  der  viel  langeren  Zeit  nicht  aufzuheben, 
welche  vorangegangen  war. 

*  The  relation  of  dependence  is  here  obvious  as  soon 
as  the  parallels  are  brought  into  juxtaposition.  Besides 
the  now  generally  admitted  fact  that  our  first  evangelist 
borrows  practically  the  whole  of  his  narrative  material 
from  Mark,  we  have  in  the  particular  instance  of 
Mk.  10:  i7-22  =  Mt.  19:  16-22  two  differences  wherein 
the  change  of  the  Markan  form  to  the  Matthsean  is  most 
natural  but  the  reverse  process  inconceivable,  (i)  Jesus' 
disclaimer  in  Mark  of  the  scribe's  epithet,  "  Why  callest 
thou  me  good  ?"  is  changed  in  Matthew  to  "Why  askest 
thou  me  about  goodness  ?  "  Yet  even  Matthew  leaves 
the  second  clause,  "  One  only  is  good,"  substantially 
as  it  was.  (2)  Matthew's  version  assimilates  the  com- 
mandments very  freely  cited  by  Mark  to  the  exact 
language  of  the  Old  Testament  and  then  supplements 
them   with   the    new   commandment   of    Jesus.     Surely 


12  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

Jesus'  disclaimer  of  the  title  "  good  "  in  the 
sense  of  having  merit  with  God,  and 
changes  the  contrast  Jesus  draws  between 
a  goodness  which  consists  in  mere  observ- 
ance of  the  common  rules  of  morality  in 
the  hope  of  reward,  and  a  "  faith  "  which 
has  renounced  all  to  die  for  God's  king- 
dom. In  the  Matthaean  form  this  becomes 
a  weak  addition  of  one  to  the  other.  But  in 
its  original  Markan  form  this  story  might 
be  said  to  give  Mark's  equivalent  to  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  For  by  the  rela- 
tion of  incident  rather  than  discourse  it 
contrasts  the  righteousness  of  Jesus  and 
his  followers,  who  have  no  "  goodness " 
save  the  gift  of  His  Spirit  who  alone  is 
"good,"  but  having  left  all  are  now 
about  to  give  their  lives  for  the  gospel, 
with  the  "  righteousness "  of  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  based  as  it  was  on  a  punctil- 
ious casuistry  which  seeks  to  "  inherit 
eternal    life."      In    form,    Jesus    seems   to 

one  cannot  remain  in  doubt  here  as  to  which  form  is 
secondary. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  13 

accede  to  the  Pharisee's  request  for  a  pro- 
cess of  acquiring  merit,  and  so  having  a 
claim  on  God  for  reward.  In  reality 
legalism  is  left  helpless.  There  is  no 
polemic,  no  tf/z/z'-legalism,  as  in  Paul.  But 
the  victory  of  faith  over  works  is  just  as 
absolute.  The  Pharisee  is  left  as  com- 
pletely as  the  publican  at  the  mercy  of 
God.  This  is  the  paradox  of  Jesus' 
legalism,  which  is  really  the  opposite. 
We  may  call  it  quasi-legalistic.  And  it 
must  be  admitted  that  our  first  gospel 
misses  the  point  when  it  makes  Jesus 
simply  commend  the  young  ruler  for  his 
strict  obedience  to  the  ten  commandments 
(supplemented  here  by  the  Christian  sum- 
mary, Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself),  assure  him  that  if  he  does  this 
he  shall  live,  and  then  add,  but  if  thou 
wouldst  attain  the  highest  grade  of 
righteousness,*  "  go  sell  all  thou  hast  and 

*  Et  d£\eis  rAeios  eivai.  The  same  word,  rAeios 
"complete,"  employed  in  the  Greek  mysteries  of  the 
"adept,"  is  used  by  this  evangelist  to  sum  up  Christ's 


14  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

give  to  the  poor."  This  representation 
of  the  gospel  is  simply  legalism  keyed 
up  to  a  little  higher  pitch.  What  Paul 
would  have  said  to  it  we  may  guess  from 
his  great  chapter  on  the  charism  of  the 
spirit  of  love :  "  Though  I  bestow  all 
my  goods  to  feed  the  poor,  and  give  my 
body  to  be  burned,  but  have  not  the 
divine  gift  of  the  spirit  of  love  —  it  is 
nothing."  But  it  does  not  follow  that 
Jesus  was  legalistic  because  Matthew 
shows  certain  tendencies  of  the  sort. 
Our  excellent  Jewish  Christian  first  evan- 
gelist has  no  idea  that  in  making  these 
slight  changes  in  the  story  of  Mark  he 
is  antagonizing  Paul.  No  more  than  has 
James,  when  he  insists  that  a  man  is 
not  "justified  by  faith  apart  from  works," 

—  a    flat    contradiction    of    Rom.    3:  28, 

—  but  that  he  must  add  the  one  to  the 
other.     Still  less  does  our  first  evangelist 

teaching  of  the  new  righteousness  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  (Mt.  5:48).  The  corresponding  passage 
in  Luke  (6:  36)   has  oUrlpfioves  "merciful." 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  15 

realize  that  he  is  leaving  out  the  most 
vital  element  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
that  righteousness  is  not  merit,*  but  a 
being  imbued  with  the  Spirit  of  Him 
who  alone  is  "good."  He  misunder- 
stands Mark  as  "James"  misunderstands 
Romans.  Like  the  excellent  converted 
Pharisees  of  Jerusalem  in  the  50's  and 
6o's,  like  their  successors  among  the 
catholic  fathers,  he  finds  himself  incapa- 
ble of  outgrowing  all  at  once  an  inborn, 
inbred  legalism. 

In  other  words,  our  first  evangelist  has 
still  somewhat  to  learn  of  Christ  from 
Paul.  For  him  Christianity  is  a  sublimated, 
transfigured  Judaism.  It  is  "  the  law  and 
the  prophets  "  in  their  essential  content 
and  fulfilment,  and  nothing  more  (Mt.  7:12 

*  The  saying  in  Lk.  17:  7-10,  "  When  ye  have  done 
all  the  things  commanded  you,  say,  We  are  unprofitable 
servants  :  we  have  done  that  which  it  was  our  duty  to  do," 
puts  Jesus'  attitude  toward  the  notion  of  righteousness  as 
merit,  having  a  claim  to  reward,  in  his  own  inimitable 
way.  The  parable  of  the  Unequal  Wage,  Mt.  20:  1-16, 
is  aimed  at  the  same  Pharisaic  error. 


16  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

cf.  Lk.  6:31).  Now  since  we  have  reason 
to  know  on  independent  grounds  that 
Mark's  representation  of  this  incident  and 
its  accompanying  teaching  is  more  original 
and  correct  than  Matthew's,  and  moreover 
are  aware  from  the  very  possibility  of  Pau- 
linism  that  Jesus  did  not  teach  a  mere  re- 
formed legalism,*  the  conclusion  could  not 
be  escaped,  if  the  fundamental  character 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  prove  really 
neo-legalistic,  that  the  composition  as  a 
whole,  however  genuine  its  principal  ele- 
ments, belongs  to  the  evangelist.  It  would 
therefore  represent  not  so  much  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  himself  as  that  of  the  early 
church  of  Palestine  such  as  it  is  described 
by  James  in  Acts  21:20,  "Myriads  of 
believing  Jews  all  zealots  for  the  Law." 
Its  apparent  form  of  a  new  ToraJi,  a  more 
refined  and  loftier  system  of  ethical  require- 
ment, would  also  then  be  due  to  the 
evangelist  and  not  to  Jesus. 

This   argument  of   criticism    is    an    ex- 

*  See  also  the  note  above. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  17 

tremely  weighty  one,  which  cannot  be  dis- 
missed until  full  justice  has  been  done 
it,  and  this  may  well  demand  readjustment 
and  modification  of  accepted  views,  even 
if  they  be  retained  as  a  whole.  We  shall 
return  to  it  later. 

Pass  now  to  a  second  consideration.  It 
is  sufficient  merely  to  attempt  in  imagina- 
tion to  realize  by  what  means  long  dis- 
courses of  Jesus  could  be  perpetuated 
unwritten  for  at  least  a  generation,  to  per- 
ceive that  we  have  no  right  to  expect  the 
preservation  of  whole  addresses  or  ser- 
mons. Even  were  we  to  take  the  three 
chapters  of  Matthew  which  correspond  to 
the  thirty-three  verses  of  Luke,  as  giving 
us  the  great  address  just  as  delivered,  the 
whole  of  this  longest  sermon  would  occupy 
in  delivery  only  a  few  minutes  of  time, 
whereas  we  know  Jesus  often  taught  for 
hours.  Parables  could  be  remembered, 
epigrammatic  answers  to  interlocutors, 
apophthegms,  principles  applied  to  the 
solution  of  current  questions    of   religion, 


18  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

patriotism,  and  duty.  But  even  the  mem- 
ory of  a  trained  disciple  of  the  rabbis 
refused  to  carry  sermons  and  addresses, 
and  the  supposed  examples  afforded  by 
the  New  Testament  have  repeatedly  turned 
out  on  closer  scrutiny  to  be  of  the  usual 
type  of  reported  addresses  in  secular  his- 
torians of  that  era,  viz.,  compositions  of 
the  author  out  of  the  best  material  at  his 
command,  intended  to  represent,  as  well  as 
the  material  permitted,  what  the  speaker 
would  have  said.  The  evidence  of  this 
lies  in  many  cases  in  the  circumstances  of 
the  interview,  which  are  often  such  as 
to  preclude  other  authority  for  the  author's 
report  than  hearsay  and  conjecture.  So 
the  dialogue  of  Jesus  with  Pilate,  Jn. 
18:32-38,  speech  of  Gamaliel  to  the  San- 
hedrin,  Acts  5  :  34-40,  letter  of  Lysias  to 
Felix,  Acts  23  :  25-30,  and  the  like.  In 
other  cases  additional  evidence  appears  in 
the  language  and  style,  as  where  the 
Johannine  discourses  are  indistinguishable 
in  style  and  character  from  the  epistles  of 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  19 

John,  or  as  in  the  speeches  of  Acts,  which 
are  at  least  shaped  by  the  author  to  his 
purpose,  and  display  his  characteristic 
diction.  Even  the  sermon  of  Jesus  in  the 
synagogue  at  Nazareth,  wherewith  our 
third  evangelist  opens  his  account  of  the 
public  ministry,  while  made  up  of  authentic 
material,*  is  unmistakably  adapted  to  the 
purpose  of  the  historian  who  relates  the 
Redeemer's  rejection  by  his  own  people 
and  subsequent  welcome  by  the  Gentiles, 
even  as  it  had  been  foretold  by  the 
prophets,  rather  than  the  purpose  in  Jesus' 
mind  when  he  addressed  his  fellow-towns- 

*  The  login  ("  divine  utterances  ")  of  Jesus  were  placed 
on  a  superhuman  plane  in  even  the  earliest  time  (i  Cor. 
7:  10,  12,  25).  Reverence  for  them  was  too  great  to 
admit  of  the  kind  of  composition  employecf-elsewhere. 
But  composition  by  agglutination,  i.e.  the  joining  to- 
gether of  logia  separately  transmitted,  is  a  demonstrable 
phenomenon  of  the  gospels  and  a  constant  practice  of  the 
fathers,  as  in  Clement  of  Rome,  ad  Cor.  13:2.  An 
instructive  illustration  of  a  saying  (originally  the  answer 
to  a  question)  transformed  by  the  evangelist  into  the 
subject-matter  of  a  sermon,  is  found  in  Mk.  1  :  7-8,  dis- 
placing as  it  does  the  real  preaching  of  John,  Mt.  3  :  7-10, 
i2  =  Lk.  3:  7-9,  17;   cf.  Jn.  1 :  19-25  and  Lk.  3:  15. 


20  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

men.  The  constant  reiteration  of  this 
theme  of  the  obduracy  of  Israel  compelling 
the  heralds  of  the  gospel  to  "  turn  to  the 
Gentiles  "  throughout  the  third  gospel  and 
Acts  shows  that  the  quotation  from  Isaiah, 
and  subsequent  justification  of  the  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles  by  the 
examples  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  in  Lk. 
4:  16-30,  cannot  be  attributed  to  Jesus 
under  just  this  form  and  these  circum- 
stances, though  they  may  well  be  authentic 
utterances.  This  being,  then,  at  least  a 
possible  method  of  the  evangelists,  we 
cannot  rule  out  of  court  the  view  that  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  has  received  the 
form  of  a  connected  discourse  simply  by 
the  aggregation  of  remembered  sayings  of 
Jesus,  in  later  times  and  for  catechetic 
purposes.  We  have,  then,  much  to  con- 
cede to  the  objector  under  this  second 
head  also.  For  (1)  we  have  a  priori  no 
right  to  expect  connected  reports  of  ser- 
mons ;  (2)  those  we  appear  to  have  are 
certainly  in  many  cases  compositions  out 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  21 

of  more  or  less  authentic  material ;  (3)  the 
main  course  of  criticism  up  to  the  present 
has  been  rightly  analytical  rather  than 
synthetic,  because  the  most  approved 
results  go  to  show  that  the  earliest  pro- 
cesses of  gospel  composition  tended  toward 
aggregation  rather  than  disintegration. 
In  other  words,  all  we  know  by  tradition, 
as  well  as  by  scrutiny  of  the  completed 
work  goes  to  show  effort  on  the  part  of 
primitive  compilers  of  the  Lord's  sayings 
to  form  connections,  even  where  they  did 
not  exist,  rather  than  a  disposition  to  break 
up  existing  contexts  and  connections.  This 
of  course  is  no  more  than  we  should  ex- 
pect, but  it  imposes  upon  us  the  task  of 
analysis  in  order  to  get  at  the  original. 

Thus  appears  a  second  weighty  objec- 
tion to  the  authenticity  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  as  a  connected  discourse. 
And  this,  too,  must  be  treated  as  care- 
fully and  as  justly  as  the  first. 

Finally  we  have  evidence  —  conclusive 
unless  we  reject   the    explicit    statements 


22  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

of  Luke — that  about  one-fourth  of  the 
Matthaean  discourse  consists  of  teachings 
uttered  on  other  occasions  ;  and  this  tes- 
timony of  Luke,  as  we  shall  see,  is  cor- 
roborated by  the  internal  evidence  of 
the  teachings  themselves,  which  agree 
much  better  with  the  circumstances  un- 
der which  Luke  declares  them  to  have 
been  uttered,  than  with  the  Matthaean 
setting.  Indeed,  the  removal  of  them 
often  restores  the  original  discourse  to 
greater  symmetry,  beauty,  and  intelligi- 
bility. 

This  third  objection  is  fatal  to  any  at- 
tempt to  vindicate  the  entire  Matthaean 
composition  as  a  transcript,  or  even 
synopsis  of  the  actual  address.  The  so- 
called  Sermon  on  the  Mount  certainly 
contains,  at  least,  a  very  considerable  ele- 
ment of  agglutinated  fragments.  Con- 
ceivably it  might  be  wholly  made  up  of 
them.  Actually,  I  am  convinced  that  it 
does  not,  but  represents  a  real  discourse 
of   Jesus    substantially  of    the    character 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  2} 

represented  by  our  first  gospel,  in  spite 
of  all  discounts  necessary  to  be  made  on 
the  score  of  the  critical  objections  above 
noted.  Not  only  so,  but  I  believe  it  to 
be  possible  to  give  strict  critical  demon- 
stration of  an  underlying,  connected  dis- 
course whose  subject  was  the  new  Torah 
of  the  righteousness  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  And  this  discourse,  if  not  directly 
derived  in  this  particular  form  from 
Jesus  himself,  is  at  least  decidedly  older 
than  either  our  (|irs£)  or  third  gospel,  so 
much  older  as  to  go  back  beyond  all 
reasonable  doub.t  to  the  time  when  many 
still  survived  who  remembered  the  actual 
preaching  of  Jesus. 

For  let  us  first  briefly  review  the  objec- 
tions, and  see  just  how  much  and  how 
little  is  really  implied,  and  afterward  I 
will  state  some  of  the  reasons  which  lead 
me  to   the    conclusion  stated. 

The  first  objection  confronts  us  with 
an  "if,"  which  nothing  but  critical  scru- 
tiny  of   the  material  will   determine.    If 


24  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

the  fundamental  character  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  is  neo-legalistic,  we  must 
regard  it  as  a  composition  of  the  evan- 
gelist whose  modification  of  the  Markan 
incident  of  the  rich  young  man  so 
significantly  takes  this  direction.  It  is 
the  word  "  fundamental "  which  must 
bear  the  stress.  Neo-legalistic  touches 
here  and  there,*  especially  such  as  do 
not  appear  in  the  Lucan  version,  may 
easily  be  accounted  for  as  supplied  by 
the  evangelist  without  affecting  the  main 
course  of  thought.  Nay,  more.  If,  as 
may  often  be  the  case,  the  intrusive 
character  of  these  additions  becomes 
apparent  from  their  disagreement  with 
the  sense  of  the  context,  the  argument 
may  be  inverted.  The  very  fact  that 
the  evangelist  deems  it  needful  to  intro- 
duce modifying  clauses  and  paragraphs 
of  the  neo-legalistic  type  goes  to  show 
that    the    material    he    thus    alters    was 

*  E.g.  Mt.  5  :  1 6  Kaka.  epya,  1 8- 1 9,  32  Trapftcrbs  \6yov 
iropvdas,  7:  I2b. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  25 

either  anti-legalistic,  or  at  least  not  legal- 
istic enough  to  meet  his  views.  Now 
in  the  course  of  our  review  we  shall 
find  repeatedly  that  it  is  not  the  funda- 
mental but  the  overlying  elements,  modi- 
fying clauses,  appended  qualifications, 
which  display  the  neo-legalistic  tendency; 
whereas  the  fundamental  course  of 
thought  in  the  discourse  as  a  whole  is 
exactly  parallel  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Markan  incident  of  the  rich  young  man: 
righteousness  is  not  a  store  of  accumu- 
lated merits,  but  self-surrender  to  the 
inworking  of  the  Spirit  of  the  divine 
goodness.  This  quasi-legalism,  as  we 
have  designated  it,  is  not  indeed  the 
same  as  Paulinism,  but  it  rests  upon  the 
same  doctrine  of  faith  as  the  one  thing 
needful.  It  involves  that  mysticism  of 
Jesus  without  which  neither  the  Pauline 
nor  the  Johannine  teaching  could  have 
ventured  to  call  itself  by  his  name.  To 
this  first  objection,  therefore,  we  may 
answer:  A  neo-legalistic.  element  is  unde- 


26  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

niably  present  in  the  Matthaean  Sermon 
on  the  Mount ;  but  so  far  is  this  from 
representing  the  main  course  of  thought 
that  its  conflict  therewith  rather  tends 
to  prove  an  underlying  discourse  whose 
character  could  not  be  fairly  regarded 
as  more  than  quasi-legalistic. 

But  it  is  presented  as  a  second  objec- 
tion that  the  actual  teaching  of  Jesus 
was  in  the  form  of  "  brief  and  concise 
utterances  "  on  the  testimony  of  very 
ancient  tradition  *  as  well  as  the  ordinary 
representation  of  the  synoptic  gospels ; 
so  that  we  have  no  right  to  expect  the 
report  of  extended  discourses,  but  on  the 
contrary  are  taught  by  all  experience 
that  the  supposed  extended  discourses  of 
the  New  Testament  are  either  free  com- 
positions of  the  historian,  or  formed  by 
agglutination.  We  are  also  directed  to 
the  Pirke  Aboth,  or  "  Sayings  of  the 
Jewish  Fathers,"  a   substantially    contem- 

*  The  words  quoted  are  from  Justin  Martyr.  First 
Apology,  xiv,  ca.  155  A.D. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  27 

porary  record  of  teachings  of  the  rabbis 
of  Jesus'  time  and  earlier,  as  the  closest 
parallel  to  the  earliest  gospel  writings. 
These  apophthegms  and  sententious  say- 
ings represent,  we  are  told,  not  only  the 
form  of  the  earliest  records  —  the  Oxy- 
rhynchus  fragment  corroborates  this  view 
■ — but  the  form  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
itself.  But  at  this  point  we  must  demur. 
The  example  of  the  Pirke  Aboth  is 
highly  instructive  as  to  the  probable 
nature  of  the  first  evangelic  composition 
of  which  we  have  record,  the  Hebrew 
(Aramaic)  Logia  of  Jesus  by  the  Apostle 
Matthew;  but  it  suggests  the  wrong  anal- 
ogy for  the  principal  public  utterances 
of  Jesus.  We  should  look  rather  to  the 
Old  Testament  prophets,  and  to  John  the 
Baptist,  their  then  living  representative, 
for  types  of  that  Teacher  who  stirred 
the  multitudes  with  amazement  because 
he  spoke  "  with  authority,  and  not  as 
the  scribes."  John  the  Baptist,  Jesus, 
and   the  Apostles  were   in  their  mode  of 


28  T)ie  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

utterance  not  scribes  but  "preachers" 
and  we  have  accordingly  no  word  better 
fitted  than  the  word  "  sermon,"  used  in 
its  noblest  sense,  to  describe  the  kind 
of  discourse  Jesus  gave  when  he  went 
round  about  the  cities  and  villages  of 
Galilee  teaching,  healing,  and,  on  the 
the  Sabbaths,  preacJiing  in  their  syjia- 
gognes. 

Undoubtedly  the  great  majority  of  the 
recorded  teachings  of  our  gospels  are  of 
the  other  type,  the  occasional  pithy  say- 
ing, apophthegm,  or  wise  and  witty  retort, 
the  parable  and  illustration,  or  remem- 
bered fragment  of  consecutive  discourse. 
But  to  take  rabbinic  teaching,  even  at 
its  best,  as  the  type  mainly  followed  by 
Jesus,  is  to  ignore  one  of  the  fundamental 
distinctions  of  the  age  ;  or  rather  to  choose 
the  very  opposite  of  the  true  alternative. 

The  teaching  in  the  synagogues  of 
Jesus'  time  was  of  two  types,  designated 
respectively  halachah  and  JiaggadaJi.  The 
former  was  authoritative  and   lesral.     The 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  29 

scribe,  or  lawyer,  who  gave  it,  simply  ex- 
pounded and  applied  the  precepts  of  the 
law.*  Of  such  casuistry,  precedent  and 
case-law,  consists  the  great  body  of  the 
Talmud,  and  Jesus,  who  by  courtesy  was 
addressed  as  "  rabbi,"  was  often  appealed 
to  for  decisions  in  this  field ;  whether  to 
entrap  him,  as  in  the  incident  of  the  de- 
narius, and  the  law  of  divorce,  or  in  good 

*  A  modern  critic  of  eminence  depicts  the  great  rabl>i 
in  the  synagogue,  sitting  in  meditative  silence  in  the 
midst  of  his  awe-struck  disciples.  After  long  periods 
of  silence  the  great  man  raises  his  head.  He  will  not 
use  the  vulgar  tongue  of  "  the  people  of  the  land,"  but 
whispers  his  weighty  decision  in  the  ear  of  his  "  minis- 
ter "  in  the  sacred  Hebrew.  And  the  targum  man,  or 
interpreter  (anglice  dragoman),  thereupon  proclaims  it 
to  the  attentive  congregation.  As  an  illustration  of 
halachic  teaching  this  is  most  serviceable  and  furnishes 
an  admirable  commentary  on  the  saying,  "  What  ye  have 
heard  in  the  ear  proclaim  upon  the  housetops."  But  as 
an  illustration  of  the  public  teaching  of  Jesus,  it  would 
be  absolutely  misleading.  Equally  incredible  in  my 
judgment  is  the  view  of  certain  leading  critics  that 
either  Jesus  or  the  earliest  compilers  of  his  teachings 
should  have  copied  the  rabbinic  affectation  of  employ- 
ing the  Hebrew  language,  unintelligible  as  it  was  to  the 
masses. 


30  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

faith,  as  when  asked,  "  Who  is  my  •  neigh- 
bor'?  "  or  "What  is  the  chief  command- 
ment?" But  Jesus  never  consents  to  enter 
this  field  of  halacJiah.  It  is  one  which  he 
turns  over  absolutely  to  the  lawyers  by 
profession,  "  the  scribes  who  sit  in  Moses' 
seat."  He  declines  to  teach  ethics  or  casu- 
istry, save  as  involved  in  his  simple  mes- 
sage of  religion.  He  declines  to  refer  to 
authorities.  In  the  language  of  his  con- 
temporaries his  teaching  was  nothalachah, 
but  haggadah ;  not  law,  but  preaching; 
and  in  the  haggadic  style,  accordingly, 
must  we  look  for  the  rhetorical  forms  to 
which  those  employed  by  Jesus  are  more 
nearly  allied.  Edification  was  the  one 
supreme  object  of  Jiaggadah,  and  its  range 
was  as  unlimited  as  its  authority  was  un- 
defined. Its  very  name  denotes  the  "  folk- 
tale "  or  "  story  " ;  its  origin  was  in  the 
democratic  synagogue,  not  in  the  aristo- 
cratic schools  of  the  temple.  No  pre- 
cedent or  authority  needed  to  be  cited,  no 
literary  expedient  of    allegory,  fiction,   or 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  31 

legend  was  excluded.  Inevitably  the  syna- 
gogue harangue  on  the  Sabbath  tended 
toward  this  character,  rather  than  its  al- 
ternative, most  of  all  in  unsophisticated 
Galilee ;  for  who  could  listen  for  hours 
on  end  to  the  dreary  casuistry  of  the 
lawyers  ?  And  Jesus  was  not  only  a 
preacher,  but  an  impassioned,  and,  in  the 
loftiest  sense  of  the  word,  a  popular 
preacher.  Is  it,  then,  so  incredible  that, 
in  addition  to  the  mass  of  sententious 
utterances,  apophthegms,  and  answers  re- 
corded in  our  gospels,  there  should  also 
remain  some  traces  of  connected  discourse 
—  of  preaching?  We  may  not,  indeed, 
expect  more  than  the  briefest  fragments 
of  any  such  address ;  but  may  there  not 
be  enough  to  form  some  outline  ?  Must 
all  the  evidences  of  logical  and  rhetorical 
arrangement,  displayed  in  such  passages  as 
the  eulogy  of  John  the  Baptist  (Mt.  n: 
7-19),  the  discourses  on  the  Sign  of  Jonah 
(Lk.  11  :  27-32),  and  on  the  True  Content 
of  Life  (Lk.  12:1 3-3 1 ),  be  attributed  to 


32  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

mere  editors  and  collectors  of  sayings? 
Criticism  has,  indeed,  concerned  itself  up 
to  now  for  the  most  part  with  analysis, 
and  rightly  so.  It  has  won  unquestion- 
able results  in  disproof  of  certain  at- 
tempted syntheses  of  early  gospel  writers  ; 
in  many  instances  our  evangelists  have 
formed,  or  taken  over,  combinations  of 
sayings  which  demonstrably  were  not  ut- 
tered in  this  relation  or  connection.  But 
while  the  conscious  and  direct  effort  of 
proto-evangelists  was  doubtless  directed 
toward  combination,  we  have  evidence  no 
less  conclusive  of  an  unconscious  and 
indirect  tendency  toward  disintegration. 
Their  very  effort  to  recombine  is  evidence 
that  they  were  aware  of  the  fragmentary 
character  of  their  material.  Often  it  gave 
mere  salient  points  retained  by  memory 
from  larger  structures.  Moreover,  these 
very  attempts,  when  unsuccessful,  will 
have  often  produced  still  further  disinte- 
gration. Of  this  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  itself  will  furnish  many  an  exam- 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  33 

pie.  And  this  imposes  upon  us  the  task 
of  synthesis  as  imperatively  as  that  of 
analysis.  Doubtless  the  task  is  precari- 
ous. Doubtless  analysis  and  reconstruc- 
tion of  the  documentary  sources  should 
precede  attempts  to  restore  the  very  utter- 
ances themselves.  But  are  not  some  steps 
already  possible  that  shall  be  both  trust- 
worthy and  critical  ?  To  this  the  answer 
must  be  found  in  the  attempt  itself. 

Finally,  we  had  as  a  third  objection  to 
the  discovery  of  any  authentic  discourse 
to  which  the  name  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
was  justly  applicable,  the  disagreement 
of  the  two  authorities  who  report  it.  In 
Matthew  the  main  thread  of  logical  con- 
nection, so  far  as  traceable,  is  the  contrast 
of  the  righteousness  of  the  Law  with  the 
righteousness  of  the  Kingdom.  In  Luke 
two-thirds  of  this  material  does  not  ap- 
pear at  all,  while  two-thirds  or  more  of 
the  remainder  is  related,  in  most  cases, 
with  every  evidence  of  correctness,  as 
uttered  on  other  occasions. 


34  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

In  weighing  the  effect  of  this  objection 
we  have  already  conceded  the  evidence 
of  agglutination.  A  very  considerable 
element  of  the  Matthsean  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  must  on  the  evidence  of  Luke  be 
admitted  to  result  from  mistaken  synthesis 
on  the  part  of  the  compiler.  But  because 
some  of  his  syntheses  are  mistaken  must 
all  be  necessarily  so  ?  Will  the  disagree- 
ment of  an  independent  witness  disprove, 
and  the  agreement  not  corroborate  ?  But 
our  final  answer  to  this  and  all  other  ob- 
jections can  only  be  by  actual  comparison 
and  cross-examination  of  the  two  wit- 
nesses. Then,  if  after  all  needful  deduc- 
tions and  corrections  of  the  one  report  by 
the  other  have  been  made,  the  unassail- 
ble  remnant  shall  still  appear  not  less,  but 
more,  logically  and  rhetorically  connected 
than  before  ;  if  it  be  more  than  ever  like 
a  literary  unit  of  connected  discourse,  less 
than  ever  like  a  mere  agglomeration  of 
sayings,  the  very  divergence  and  indepen- 
dence of  the  witnesses  will  strengthen  the 


Tl)e  Sermon  on  the  Mount  35 

proof  that  this  unity  is  not  artificial,  but 
original ;  that  it  goes  far  back  into  the 
age  of  living  first-hand  tradition,  if  not 
to  the  great  Preacher  himself. 

So  much  as  to  the  objections,  which  we 
have  endeavored  to  estimate  at  their  true 
value  ;  no  more,  no  less. 

I  have  now  to  present  three  reasons  for 
my  conviction  that  Matthew,  however  in- 
correct in  the  admission  of  many  large 
masses  of  discourse  uttered  on  other  occa- 
sions, is  in  his  general  representation 
correct. 

There  was  a  real  sermon,  a  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  a  discourse  of  Jesus  to  his  dis- 
ciples, worthy  to  be  called  the  New  Torah 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God ;  because  in  it  he 
set  forth,  with  that  clear  consistency  of 
thought  and  integrity  of  style  so  charac- 
teristic of  the  parables,  the  relation  of  mo- 
rality and  religion  in  the  coming  kingdom, 
to  that  of  which  the  scribes  and  Phari- 
sees were  respectively  the  theoretical  and 
practical    exponents.       Thus    the    special 


36  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

rhetorical  form  in  which  the  discourse 
is  cast,  an  antitype  to  the  Law  of  Moses, 
is  not  something  created  by  our  evan- 
gelist, but  rather,  turned  to  account  by 
him ;  for,  when  we  inquire  as  to  the  real 
doctrinal  import,  the  neo-legalistic  ten- 
dency appears  nowhere  but  in  superficial 
touches.  The  discourse  as  a  whole,  if 
not  positively  anti-legalistic  is  at  least 
non-legalistic. 

My  first  reason  for  justifying  to  this 
extent  the  representation  of  our  first  evan- 
gelist is  chiefly  negative.  We  must  account 
for  the  absence  from  the  discourse  in 
Luke's  version  (Lk.  6:20-49)  °f  au"  tnat 
pertains  to  the  contrast  between  the  new 
righteousness  and  the  old.  But  to  under- 
stand this  we  have  only  to  remember,  first, 
that  Luke  is  almost  certainly  addressing 
Gentiles,  who  had  small  interest  in  the 
mere  relation  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  to 
what  "they  of  old  time"  had  said,  or  the 
righteousnesses  esteemed  by  scribe  and 
Pharisee.     His  readers  wanted  simply  the 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  37 

positive  content  of  Jesus'  requirement.* 
Second,  we  must  remember  the  strong 
anti-Judaism  of  this  writer,  as  evinced  in 
Acts,  which  might  lead  him  to  neglect  the 
antithesis  of  Law  and  Gospel.  Third,  we 
have  only  to  compare  his  very  cavalier 
treatment  of  a  kindred  section  of  Mark, 
whose  gospel  we  know  lay  before  him. 
I  mean  the  section  on  Jesus'  conflict  with 
"  the  scribes  who  came  down  from  Jeru- 
salem "  about  ceremonial  washings,  the 
traditions  of  the  elders,  and  the  distinc- 
tions of  clean  and  unclean  meats  (Mk.  7: 
1-23),  all  of  which  Luke  practically  elimi- 
nates.   We  see  it  then  to  have  been  the  ac- 

*  Our  third  gospel  is  often  spoken  of  as  a  Gentile  gos- 
pel, largely  on  the  assumption  that  the  tradition  associ- 
ating it  with  the  name  of  the  Gentile  Luke  is  correct. 
On  this  point  we  make  no  assumption  (see  Bacon,  In- 
trod,  to  N.  T.  Lit.,  pp.  211-229).  On  the  contrary  the 
sections  peculiar  to  Luke  are  more  strongly  Palestinian, 
Petrine,  and  Jewish-Christian  than  any  other  element  of 
the  New  Testament.  But  excisions  are  made  {e.g.  of 
Mk.  7  :  24-30),  and  misunderstandings  occur  (Lk. 
11:39;  cf.  Mt.  23:25  and  2:22  (?)),  which  suggest 
rather  a  Gentile  destination  and  Gentile  compiler. 


38  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

tual  practice  of  this  evangelist  to  strike  out 
matter  which,  as  he  looked  at  it,  only  con- 
cerned Jesus'  relation  to  Jewish  law.*  Thus 
Luke's  omissions  are  not  unaccountable. 

But  there  is  more.  Evidence  exists  in 
Luke's  own  report  that  this  part  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  really  was  once 
present  in  the  source  which  he  employed. 
Turn  to  Lk.  6 :  27,  and  ask  yourselves 
why  it  should  begin,  "But  I  say  unto 
you,"  f  without  something  before  it  corre- 
sponding to  Matthew's  antithesis  of  what 
"they  of  old  time  "  had  said.  More  signifi- 
cant still,  how  comes  it  that  the  striking 
thought  and   phrase  on  ground  of  which 

*  Compare  also  the  reduced  dimensions  of  the  Woes 
against  scribes  and  Pharisees  in  Mt.  23,  as  given  in 
Lk.  n,  and  of  the  Warning  against  their  teaching 
Mt.  16:  5-12  =  Mk.  8:    13-21,  in  Lk.  12:  1. 

t  The  Greek,  'AXXa  vfuv  Ktyw  rots  aKovovcriv, "  But  to 
you  that  hear,  I  say,"  places  the  contrast  otherwise  than 
the  English  would  suggest.  But  the  distinction  between 
the  absent  rich,  full,  well  spoken  of,  and  present  poor, 
empty,  persecuted,  impresses  one  as  forced  upon  the  con- 
nection rather  than  original.  It  was  needless  to  specify 
that  the  speaker  addressed  those  present,  not  the  absent. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  39 

the  acts  of  piety,  almsgiving,  prayer,  fast- 
ing done  from  ostentation  are  denied  any 
credit  with  God  —  cnre^ovac  rov  yuadov 
avTwv,  "  they  have  in  full  their  reward  "  * 
—  is  the  same  thought  and  phrase  on 
ground  of  which  they  that  are  "rich  and 
increased  in  goods,  and  have  need  of 
nothing"  are  denied  a  share  in  the  king- 
dom, if  both  are  not  from  the  same  mind  ? 
Yet  one  is  the  Matthaean  refrain  of  the 
antitheses  on  the  true  worship  (Mt.  6 : 
1-18),  which  do  not  appear  in  Luke  ;  and 
the  other  is  the  Lukan  burden  of  the 
Woes  (Lk.  6 :  24-26),  which  do  not  ap- 
pear in  Matthew.  Both  sections  must 
be  authentic,  or  the  characteristic  thought 
and  expression  would  not  appear  on  both 
sides ;  for  Matthew,  in  the  form  that  we 
have  it,  was  almost  certainly  unknown  to 

*  The  recently  discovered  contemporary  papyri  from 
the  Fayoum  admirably  illustrate  the  peculiar  use  of  this 
term,  dWx°w,  translated  by  the  Revisers,  "  they  have 
received."  It  is  the  technical  term  by  which  one  receipts 
in  full  for  a  loan  or  bill.  See  Deissmann,  Bible  Studies, 
p.  229. 


40  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

Luke.*  We  are  compelled  to  assume  a 
common  source  which  included  elements 
omitted  first  by  Matthew,  then  by  Luke. 

My  second  reason  for  indorsing  the 
title  "  The  New  Torah  "  may  sound  some- 
what a  priori  in  character,  until  you  know 
the  facts.  But  let  me  state  it  first.  I 
do  not  believe  that  the  Reformer,  who, 
after  his  triumphant  entry  into  Jerusalem, 
began  his  programme  of  openly  Messianic 
activity  t  with  the  cleansing  of  the  temple, 
accompanied  as  it  was  by  the  great  say- 
ing about  rebuilding  it  in  three  days,  can 
have  failed  at  a  much  earlier  period  to 
make  full,  clear,  and  formal  definition  to 
at  least  the  inner  circle  of  his  disciples 
of  his  relation    to   that   institution  which 

*  See  my  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  1900, 
p.  180. 

t  That  is,  the  final  Passover  week.  The  ministry 
previously  had  not  been  openly  Messianic  (Mt.  16  :  17, 
20).  Could  we  suppose  with  the  fourth  evangelist  that 
Jesus'  Messianic  claims  were  openly  declared  from  the 
beginning,  his  placing  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple 
might  be  admissible.       But  this  is  impossible. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  41 

to  them  was  even  greater,  and  far  more 
closely  related  to  their  religious  life ;  I 
mean  the  Law.  There  were  certain 
great,  stereotyped  Messianic  expectations 
of  Jesus'  time,  only  partly  justified  by 
Scripture,  it  is  true,  and  in  other  respects 
ill-befitting  the  kingdom  he  proclaimed, 
to  which  Jesus  yet  clearly  adapted  him- 
self and  gave  fulfilment,  albeit  a  fulfilment 
so  much  more  spiritual  than  the  current 
idea  as  to  meet  but  small  acceptance. 
Such  was  the  very  conception  of  Christ- 
hood  itself.  It  is  by  no  means  Jesus' 
own  term  for  the  part  he  felt  called  on  to 
play.  He  uses  the  term  but  three  times 
in  all,  and  then  as  it  were  under  protest.* 
He  is  the  Christ,  indeed,  but  not  what 
men  mean  by  the  term.  He  gives  it  a 
new  sense.  He  knows  himself  the  Son 
of  God,  but  that,  too,  not  in  the  accepted 
sense.     He  calls  himself  the  Son  of  Man. 

*  For  the  real  significance  of  Jesus'  reply  to  the 
adjuration  of  the  high  priest,  "Art  thou  the  Christ  ?"  — 
<xii  fl-rras,  see  Thayer,  vcijourn.  of  Bid/.  Lit.,  1894. 


42  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

So  also  with  the  current  ideas  of  the 
redemption  to  be  brought  in.  Perhaps 
the  most  widespread  figure  by  which  it 
was  expressed  was  the  conception  of  the 
great  Messianic  feast.  This  also  Jesus 
spiritualizes  (Mt.  4:4),  or  turns  into  a 
feeding  of  the  world  with  his  doctrine 
(Jn.  6  :  26-58  ;  cf.  Mt.  16  :  12).  Jesus,  we 
see,  was  too  wise  to  begin  his  reformatory 
career  with  open  claims  of  a  Messianic 
office  whose  nature  all  would  misunder- 
stand. But  it  is  impossible  to  suppose 
that  he  began  it  without  a  clear  notion 
of  what  he  himself  meant  by  it,  or  without 
a  full  realization  that  it  implied  a  recast- 
ing of  the  most  fundamental  institutions 
of  Israel ;  in  particular,  a  new  conception 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  or  reign  of 
Messiah.  Common  sense  thus  required 
him  to  begin  by  teaching  in  what  new 
sense  these  great  ideas  of  the  popular 
hope  and  faith  must  be  understood.  Now, 
if  you  have  read  something  of  the  litera- 
ture   which   is    just    beginning    to    reveal 


Tlie  Sermon  on  the  Mount  43 

to  us  the  religious  conceptions  of  Jesus' 
time  from  Jewish  sources,  I  mean  such 
books  as  Weber's  Lehre  dcs  Talmud  and 
R.  H.  Charles's  EscJiatology,  you  will  find 
that  there  were  two  expectations  of  Mes- 
siah profoundly  established  in  the  pop- 
ular faith,  having  genuine  root  in  the 
great  prophecies  of  the  past,  and  at  the 
same  time  of  such  a  nature  that  they 
could  not  but  appeal  to  Jesus  as  at  least 
in  some  sense  justifiable.  It  will  be  a 
very  helpful  illustration  of  what  we  may 
term  the  pedagogic  method  of  Jesus,  to 
observe  how  he  dealt  with  these  two 
current  particulars  of  the  general  Mes- 
sianic hope ;  both  of  them  of  larger  and 
deeper  significance  than  that  of  the  Mes- 
sianic feast  already  referred  to.  One  of 
these  two  maintained  that  foremost  among 
the  achievements  of  Messiah  would  be  the 
rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple. 
Weber,  in  §  83  of  his  book,  cites  a  multi- 
tude of  passages  from  the  Talmud  illus- 
trative  of    the   expectation.      First,    such 


44  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

as  relate  to  the  city,  based,  of  course,  on 
Isaiah  and  Ezekiel,  and  constantly  recall- 
ing to  us  the  picture  of  the  New  Jerusa- 
lem of  Revelation ;  and,  second,  an  equal 
number  regarding  the  similar  renovation 
of  the  temple,  which  is,  of  course,  to 
every  Jew,  the  glory  of  Jerusalem.  The 
targum  on  Is.  53:5  already  declares  that 
Messiah  will  rebuild  the  sanctuary,  and 
later  writings  enlarge  upon  its  surpassing 
glory.  The  pre-Christian  book  of  Enoch 
similarly  enlarges  on  this  Messianic  re- 
newal of  the  temple.  Not  improbably 
the  disciples  may  have  had  it  in  mind 
when  they  pointed  with  pride  to  the 
goodly  stones  of  the  temple  of  Herod. 
And  Jesus,  as  we  have  seen,  did  not  turn 
a  deaf  ear  to  this  Messianic  expectation. 
The  great  symbolic  act  of  purifying  the 
temple  defined  his  position  with  regard 
to  it,  but  not  without  an  accompanying 
statement  in  explicit  terms.  He  predicted 
the  overthrow  of  that  "  temple  built  with 
hands,"    but    promised    that     "  in     three 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  45 

days  "  he  would  replace  it  by  a  spiritual 
temple,  world-wide,  eternal,  in  which  true 
worshippers  should  render  spiritual  sacri- 
fice to  the  Father  of  all.  Thereupon, 
down  all  the  succession  of  Christian 
preachers  and  writers,  Stephen,  Paul, 
Peter,  John,  and  long  after  among  the 
fathers,  reechoes  the  great  saying  of 
Jesus  on  the  living  "  temple  not  built 
with  hands  "  of  the  Messianic  kingdom. 
Similar  is  his  treatment  of  the  other 
expectation,  regarding  a  still  more  funda- 
mental institution  of  Israel.  No  less  ex- 
plicit and  positive  than  the  expectation 
regarding  the  temple  was  the  popular 
faith  of  Jesus'  day  that  Messiah  when  he 
came  would  reconstruct  the  Law.  The 
very  scribes,  untiring  as  they  were  in  their 
exaggerated  laudation  of  its  perfections, 
were  abundantly  conscious  of  the  need 
of  interpretation.  This  need  they  some- 
times expressed  by  declaring  with  R.  Chija 
of  Is.  53  :  5  (the  same  passage  applied  to 
the  rebuilding  of  the  temple):  "This  re- 


46  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

lates  to  the  days  of  Messiah.  A  great 
thing  will  then  occur.  The  To  rah  will  be 
as  if  new ;  it  will  be  renewed  for  Israel." 
Sometimes  they  spoke  as  if  the  transfor- 
mation were  to  be  still  more  radical:  "The 
Holy  One,  blessed  be  he,  will  sit  and  teach 
\darasfi\  a  new  Torah,  which  he  will  give 
through  Messiah."  But  the  expression 
darash,  the  technical  term  for  exposition,* 
shows  that  what  is  really  predicted  is  only 
such  illuminative  interpretation,  that  the 
Law  would  seem  new,  transfigured,  glori- 
fied. In  this  sense  the  Christ  was  called 
in  Jewish  Christian  circles  the  "  true 
Prophet,"  the  second  Moses. f  Even  in 
the  days  of  Judas  Maccabseus  they  laid  up 
for  his  coming  the  stones  of  the  altar  de- 
filed by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  not  know- 
ing what   to    do   with   them ;  and,   as  we 

*  Literally  "  tread  out,"  a  figure  derived  from  the 
process  of  threshing  by  the  feet  of  oxen.  Paul  (i  Cor. 
9  :  9)  assumes  that  Dt.  25  :  4  must  apply  principally  to  the 
human  darshan  (i.e.  "  treader  out")  rather  than  to 
literal  oxen,  on  grounds  similar  to  Lk.  12:24. 

t  So  in  Clem.  Homilies  and  Recognitions, passim. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  47 

know,  the  Samaritan  woman  herself  be- 
lieves that  the  end  of  controversy  as 
between  Jerusalem  and  Mount  Gerizim 
will  be  "  when  Messiah  cometh,  who  will 
tell  us  all  things."  Rightly  or  wrongly 
the  shepherdless  sheep  of  Israel  looked 
forward  with  longing  to  Messiah  as  the 
great  Interpreter  of  Scripture,  the  "  Re- 
newer  of  the  Law  "  —  so  they  called  him  * 
—  and  such  an  expectation  we  have  a 
right  to  assume  Jesus  would  not  disap- 
point. 

It  is  true  that  this  is  a  priori  reasoning, 
by  which  it  would  be  hopeless,  in  the 
absence  of  actual  reported  utterances,  to 
establish  more  than  the  possibility  that 
Jesus  viigJit,  even  at  a  very  early  period 
of  his  ministry  in  Galilee,  have  drawn  a 
detailed  comparison  between  the  present 
ToraJi  and  the  ToraJi  of  the  age  to  come. 
But  it  is  precisely  this  which  we  are  called 
upon  to  prove.  The  reported  utterance 
exists.       The  gospels  report  a   discourse 

*  See  the  passage  cited  below  from  Test,  of  Levi,  16. 


48  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

of  this  type.  But  the  possibility  of  such 
a  discourse  is  denied,  on  the  ground  that 
Jesus  could  not,  at  so  early  a  period  in  his 
ministry,  have  assumed  to  legislate  as  Mes- 
siah, and  the  existence  of  the  report  is  ex- 
plained as  due  to  the  conviction  of  the 
evangelists  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah, 
their  mistaken  inference  that  therefore  he 
must  from  the  outset  have  promulgated  the 
Messianic  Torah,  and  their  ability  to  put  to- 
gether from  the  occasional  sayings  of  Jesus 
an  agglomeration  sufficient  to  bear  the  title. 
Now  this  objection  is  removed  as  soon 
as  we  reflect  that  the  utterance  of  the 
supposed  discourse  is  a  very  different 
matter,  as  regards  the  inference  to  be 
drawn  as  to  the  speaker's  personality, 
from  such  an  act  as  the  purifying  of  the 
temple,  which  instantly  called  forth  the 
demand,  "  By  what  authority  doest  thou 
these  things?"  It  indeed  the  discourse 
were  rightly  described  as  the  promulga- 
tion of  the  Messianic  Law,  if  the  speaker 
really  placed  himself  in  the  attitude,  not 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  49 

of  declaring  the  nature  of  the  law  that  will 
prevail  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  of 
personally  legislating  to  this  effect,  then 
the  objection  would  hold.  As  it  is,  there 
is  nothing  belonging  to  the  genuine  sub- 
stance of  the  reported  discourse  which 
goes  beyond  the  general  nature  of  Jesus' 
teaching  in  Galilee  as  reported  by  all  the 
Synoptists.  It  is  indeed  a  teaching  of 
"  authority "  unlike  that  of  the  scribes, 
and  so  well  calculated  to  rouse  the 
amazement  of  the  hearers;  but  not  be- 
yond that  of  the  preaching  of  the  Baptist. 
It  is  the  authority  of  "  a  mighty  prophet," 
announcing  now  not  merely  that  "  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,"  but  an- 
nouncing also  its  nature,  and  the  character 
of  its  laws  and  institutions.  Yet  no  one 
need  infer  more  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
speaker  than  that  he  is  "Jeremias  or  one 
of  the  prophets,"  or  perhaps  "  Elias  that 
was  for  to  come,"  or  even  "John  the  Bap- 
tist risen  from  the  dead."  It  is  simply 
in  line  with  the  general  message  of  "  the 


50  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

prophet  of  Nazareth,"  how  that,  "  the  time 
is  fulfilled  and  the  kingdom  at  hand,"  and 
with  the  parables  by  which  he  defined  its 
character,  that  to  those  who  listened  to  his 
authoritative  summons  to  "believe  the  glad 
tidings  "  and  order  their  lives  accordingly, 
he  should  also  set  forth  the  nature  and 
principles  of  its  Law.  Understand  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  we  have  shown 
and  will  show  that  it  must  be  understood, 
as  the  utterance  not  of  a  legislator  but  a 
prophet  of  the  kingdom,  and  the  objection 
disappears.  Add  now  the  consideration 
adduced  that  expectations  of  his  hearers 
which  must  needs  have  appealed  to  Jesus 
as  legitimate,  loudly  called  for  an  immedi- 
ate declaration  on  this  point  of  the  relation 
of  the  New  Torah  to  that  of  which  Scribe 
and  Pharisee  were  the  exponents,  and  the 
argument  is  reversed.  We  should  rather 
be  greatly  surprised  if  our  authorities  did 
not  report  utterances  of  the  Master,  clearly 
genuine,  in  which  his  followers'  expectation 
on  this  point  was  met. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  51 

But  if  met,  was  it  in  so  obscure  a  way, 
that  only  the  later  speculation  of  the 
church,  turning  back  and  reflecting  on 
his  teachings,  would  at  last  realize  that 
its  "  new  law  "  was  already  given  ?  Or 
did  he  meet  it  as  clearly  and  manifestly 
as  that  regarding  the  temple,  setting  in 
contrast  the  standard  of  righteousness 
which  must  prevail  in  the  kingdom  he 
declared  "  at  hand "  with  the  standards 
of  those  who  sat  in  Moses'  seat  ?  Cer- 
tainly the  early  church  thought  its  Master 
had  proclaimed  a  new  Torah.  We  have 
not  only  James  with  his  "  royal  law,"  his 
"  law  of  liberty "  proclaimed  by  Christ, 
not  only  Barnabas,  with  his  opposition 
of  "  the  new  law  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
which  is  without  the  yoke  of  constraint " 
to  the  Law  of  Moses  ;  not  only  the  nova 
lex  of  the  catholic  fathers,  but  writings 
of  the  primitive  Jewish  church  like  the 
Testament  of  Levi,  which  lay  hold  on  the 
very  language  of  scribal  expectation, 
placing   in    the    mouth    of    the    patriarch 


52  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

the  prediction  "  The  man  who  reneweth 
the  law  in  the  power  of  the  Highest  ye 
will  call  a  deceiver,  and  at  last  will  slay 
him." 

On  this  question,  whether,  and  to  what 
extent  the  tradition  of  the  church  is  justified, 
nothing  will  enlighten  us  save  a  detailed 
scrutiny  of  the  reported  discourse  itself, 
as  its  own  internal  sequence  of  thought 
reveals  its  purpose.  And  we  must  distin- 
guish here  between  the  internal  evidence 
and  the  view  of  the  reporter ;  for  the  evan- 
gelist, as  some  argue  to  whom  we  have  al- 
ready referred,  might  have  been  led  by  his 
innate  habit  of  thought  to  cast  his  great 
initial  discourse  of  Jesus  in  this  form.  So 
far  as  possible,  then,  we  must  get  back  of 
all  editorial  work.  We  must  put  together 
all  we  can  learn  from  the  three  synoptic 
sources  regarding  the  occasion  and  con- 
tent, and  draw  from  all  sources  our  con- 
clusion on  the  question :  What  was  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  its  own  inherent 
literary    structure   and   didactic    purpose  ? 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  53 

But  to  answer  this  question  is  not  only 
to  decide  whether  or  not  there  was  a  dis- 
course of  approximately  the  character  we 
have  been  accustomed  to  believe ;  it  is  at 
the  same  time  to  interpret.  We  shall  be 
getting  at  one  of  the  most  important,  if 
not  the  most  important,  of  Jesus'  public 
utterances ;  and  in  proportion  to  its  impor- 
tance, and  our  success  in  getting  at  his 
point  of  view,  his  own  words  and  thought, 
we  shall  also  be  achieving  our  supreme 
purpose  of  knowing  this  Son  of  Man,  not 
by  what  we  are  told  about  him,  but  because 
we  have  heard  him  ourselves. 

I  crave  your  patience  with  many  pre- 
liminaries. There  remains  still,  after  the 
formulation  of  our  problem,  a  word  as  to 
method.  For  the  method,  after  all,  is 
more  than  the  results  of  its  application  in 
any  particular  instance.  And  I  must  not 
only  define,  but  possibly  even  defend ; 
for  that  which  I  propose  to  apply — to 
some  extent  have  already  applied  —  is  to 
many  an  object  of  profound  distrust  and 


54  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

suspicion.      It  is  the  method  of  the  higher 
criticism. 

It  is  a  pity  that  any  method  of  Bible 
study  —  a  process  for  getting  at  the  real 
significance  of  Scripture  —  should  be  an 
object  of  suspicion  to  godly  people. 
However,  novelty,  especially  in  matters  of 
religion,  cannot  expect  to  pass  unchal- 
lenged. Yet  ask  yourselves  this  ques- 
tion :  What  interest  can  a  man  possibly 
take  in  investigating  the  origins  of  the 
biblical  writings  who  has  no  interest  in 
the  writings  themselves  ?  If  scholars 
whose  standing  and  influence,  if  not  their 
very  livelihood,  depend  on  the  continued 
interest  and  respect  accorded  to  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Canon,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
personal  enthusiasm  they  manifest,  are 
willing  to  devote  a  lifetime  to  the  explo- 
ration of  the  obscure  problems  of  the 
growth  of  this  literature,  is  it  not  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  they  do  so  as  a  rule 
in  the  conviction  that  the  real  value  of  the 
Bible   will   thereby  be   enhanced  ?      Is  it 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  55 

probable  that  they  are  all  trying,  in  meta- 
phorical phrase,  to  saw  off  the  branch  they 
hang  to  ?  So  much  as  to  motive.  I  leave 
the  witness  of  the  many  who  declare  this 
method  to  have  been  an  unveiling  of  the 
Scriptures  to  them  to  speak  for  the  results. 

As  to  definition.  The  higher  criticism 
is  the  complement  of  the  lower,  or  textual, 
which  deals  with  the  transmission  and  dis- 
semination of  the  sacred  text,  after  it  left 
the  hand  which  gave  it  its  ultimate  form 
as  a  literary  product.  The  textual  critic 
asks  :  "  What  was  originally  written  ?  " 
The  higher  critic  asks  :  How  came  it  to 
be  written  ?     When  ?  why  ?  and  by  whom  ? 

Like  every  product  of  human  effort, 
these  writings  had  a  history  of  their  forma- 
tion as  well  as  of  their  distribution.  To 
stop  arbitrarily  at  the  point  where  the 
author  gave  his  work  to  the  public,  is  as 
though  one  should  leave  off  with  botany 
at  the  surface  of  the  ground,  and  declare 
the  root  and  seed  life  of  the  plant  an  in- 
scrutable   mystery.     Still   more    absurd  if 


56  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

this  author  employed  the  work  of  prede- 
cessors in  the  field,  as  Luke  for  one  has 
done,  on  the  evidence  of  his  own  report 
(Lk.  I  :  i).  Back  of  the  work  of  historian, 
compiler,  letter-writer,  editor,  with  his  pen, 
lies  his  work  as  an  accumulator  of  materi- 
als, oral  or  written.  Other  equally  im- 
portant factors  are  his  own  personality, 
purpose,  mental  history  and  propensity, 
his  environment,  and  the  occasion  of  his 
writing,  the  effect  of  the  thought  of  others 
on  his  own,  whether  as  antagonist  or  per- 
haps as  correspondents.*  Knowledge  of  all 
this  is  as  indispensable  to  an  understand- 
ing of  the  true  significance  of  writings,  as 
knowledge  of  what  happens  under  the  soil 
to  an  understanding  of  plants ;  and  from 
its  relation  to  textual  study  the  method  is 
called  the  higher  {i.e.  remoter,  antecedent) 
criticism. 

But  it  is  said  knowledge  on  these  sub- 
jects   is    impossible,    and,  moreover,    the 

*  As  the  Corinthians,  to  whose  letter   (i  Cor.  7:1) 
Paul  is  replying  in  our  First  Corinthians. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  57 

processes  employed  and  results  announced 
are  very  obnoxious  to  devout  conviction. 
As  to  the  possibility  or  impossibility  of 
ascertaining  something  here,  all  we  need 
say  is,  that  is  just  the  question  to  be  deter- 
mined ;  the  process  and  evidence  are  pub- 
lic ;  if  results  seem  meagre  or  ill-supported, 
let  them  go  for  what  they  are  worth.  They 
do  not  stand  on  authority,  but  on  their 
reasonableness.  Whoever  finds  them 
worthless  or  insecure,  has  his  Bible  as  it 
was  before  to  return  to. 

As  to  the  dislike  of  them,  it  is  the  story 
of  textual  criticism  over  again.  The  Hel- 
vetic Confession  formulated  a  doctrine 
of  sacred  Scripture  for  the  Calvinistic 
churches  which  implied  that  we  possess  an 
absolutely  authentic  Greek  and  Hebrew 
text.  For  a  century  the  effort  was  made 
to  ignore  the  variations  of  the  manuscripts 
from  the  form  which  had  come,  almost  by 
accident,  into  the  position  of  a  standard. 
Beza's  great  manuscript,  antedating  by  five 
centuries  that   from   which   the    so-called 


58  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

"received  text"  had  been  taken,  was  prac- 
tically suppressed.  The  Vaticanus,  centu- 
ries older  still,  was  jealously  guarded  from 
publication  down  to  our  own  day.  The 
pointing  out  by  scholars  of  variations,  as 
that  the  oldest  manuscripts  do  not  contain 
the  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark,  or  the  story 
of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  was  bit- 
terly resented.  Yet  who  to-day  does  not 
know  and  rejoice  in  that  very  variation,  by 
which,  through  comparison,  we  come  at  a 
form  of  text  antecedent  in  many  cases  to 
that  of  any  known  manuscript  ? 

The  history  of  the  higher  criticism  is 
exactly  analogous.  Here  the  facts  to  be 
ascertained  are,  as  we  saw,  not  of  the 
transmission,  but  of  the  formation  of  the 
writing,  and  we  are  not  often  so  fortu- 
nately situated  as  in  the  gospels,  where  we 
have  more  than  one  witness  to  summon. 
But  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  comes  to  us 
through  two  widely  variant  reports  of 
equal  authority.  What  shall  we  do  in  this 
case  ?     Ignore  the  differences,  deny  them, 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  59 

vilify  the  men  who  call  attention  to  them, 
as  has  been  done  ?  Shall  we,  as  is  far 
more  common,  do  our  utmost  to  shut  our 
eyes  to  them,  gloss  them  over,  "  harmo- 
nize "  them,  as  the  expression  is  ?  Or  shall 
we  be  willing  to  learn  from  God's  word  as 
it  is,  rather  than  as  it  would  be  convenient 
for  our  theories  of  inspiration  to  have  it  ? 
I  will  assume,  for  my  hearers  at  least,  that 
they  mean  to  study  the  Bible  with  eyes  as 
well  as  ears  wide  open,  unafraid  of  what  it 
shall  teach  them,  though  every  man-made 
theory  of  inspiration  be  overthrown,  back 
to  the  Nicene  Creed,  with  its  single  declara- 
tion of  faith  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  "who 
spake  by  the  prophets." 

Finally,  a  word  as  to  the  scientific  prin- 
ciples on  which  this  method  of  the  higher 
criticism  is  based.  I  have  said  we  should 
welcome  the  divergences  of  our  parallel 
reports  for  what  can  be  learned  from  them, 
inasmuch  as  we  are  not  in  the  least  alarmed 
for  fear  any  of  our  evangelists  will  be 
caught  in   a   falsehood.      We   believe,   in 


60  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

fact,  that  as  plain,  high-minded,  but  in- 
tensely interested  men,  they  tell  the  story 
as  they  understand  it,  and  with  their  own 
selection  and  emphasis,  for  their  own  pur- 
pose ;  to  all  of  which  they  have  a  perfect 
right.  Now,  this  is  gospel  criticism.  The 
process  of  research  is  simply  what  lawyers 
call  friendly  cross-examination.  The  law- 
yer cross-questions  his  own  witnesses  be- 
fore the  jury.  They  very  likely  do  not 
know  what  he  is  getting  at.  But  by  skil- 
ful questioning  he  manages  to  draw  from 
mutually  independent  sources  —  and  the 
more  independent  and  reciprocally  diver- 
gent the  better,  so  long  as  the  jury  see  that 
they  are  honest  men,  each  telling  the  story 
from  his  own  point  of  view  —  a  conception 
of  what  transpired,  that  will  be  identical 
with  the  account  of  no  single  one  of  them, 
and  yet  better  adapted  to  the  jury's  com- 
prehension, and  nearer  the  facts,  than  any. 
This,  I  say,  is  the  method  of  the  higher 
criticism.  It  is  true  that  there  may  be  un- 
friendly cross-examination,  whose  object  is 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  61 

to  make  an  honest  witness  appear  dishon- 
est, and  to  obscure  rather  than  elucidate 
the  truth  ;  but  this  method  is  as  hateful  to 
the  true  critic  as  to  the  devout  believer, 
because  it  is  unscientific.  The  "  special 
pleader"  has  no  more  right  in  the  profes- 
sor's chair  than  on  the  judge's  bench. 

But  comparison  of  divergent  reports  is 
not  all,  of  course ;  for  as  you  have  already 
reflected,  there  are  portions  even  of  the 
synoptic  writings,  like  the  Book  of  Acts, 
where,  except  in  the  portions  paralleled 
by  the  Pauline  Epistles,  we  have  practi- 
cally but  one  witness.  What  then  ?  Again, 
ask  the  lawyer.  He  does  not  refrain  from 
friendly  cross-examination  because  he  has 
but  one  witness.  He  knows  that  human 
testimony  invariably  consists  partly  of 
observation,  partly  of  inference.  Let 
the  witness  tell  his  story  without  inter- 
ruption in  his  own  way.  The  more  inter- 
est he  has  in  the  impression  his  narrative 
is  to  make,  the  stronger  will  be  the  em- 
phasis he  places  on  what  impresses  him, 


62  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

the  larger  also  the  element  of  inference, 
which  in  all  testimony  stands  in  variable 
proportion  to  observed  fact.  And  much 
of  this  inference  will  be  honestly  stated 
as  fact.  But  the  lawyer  knows  there  may 
be  a  different  conception  of  the  facts  and 
their  bearing.  Suppose  now,  the  testi- 
mony has  been  taken  by  deposition.  The 
witness  is  absent  or  dead  ;  there  is  only 
his  affidavit.  Are  we  no  longer  able  to 
place  a  check  upon  it?  Must  the  disas- 
trous rule  be  applied :  Falsus  in  uno, 
falsus  in  omnibus  ?  Far  from  it.  Surely 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  consistency  or 
inconsistency  with  oneself,  and  with  the 
constant  unities  of  place  and  time.  If  you 
are  a  lawyer  using  an  affidavit,  or  a  his- 
torical critic  dealing  with  the  one  authority 
on  whom  later  writers  depend,  you  will 
certainly  sometime  be  obliged  to  apply 
this  principle  of  self-consistency.  It  is 
possible  to  say  sometimes,  even  when  we 
have  but  a  single  witness,  and  to  say  rea- 
sonably, if  the  right  precautions  of  self- 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  63 

distrust  and  familiarization  with  the  cir- 
cumstances are  taken,  the  witness  in 
this  particular  was  mistaken.  It  is  not 
reasonable  to  say  in  advance  of  the  experi- 
ment, Those  whom  God  has  made  his  wit- 
nesses will  be  excepted  from  the  limita- 
tions of  all  others.  Hence,  even  where 
we  have  but  a  single  authority,  there  is 
still  occasion  for  historical  criticism.  For- 
tunately the  cases  are  rare,  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  where  we  are  reduced  to 
the  testimony  of  a  single  witness,  still 
more  rare  in  which  sayings  do  not  at  once 
vindicate  themselves  when  restored  to  a 
more  suitable  context,  while  sayings  ir- 
reconcilable with  Jesus'  well-established 
teachings  are  here  at  least  practically  non- 
existent. 

It  may  be  said,  indeed,  This  method 
deals  only  with  the  human  element  of 
the  Bible ;  it  does  not  touch  the  ultimate 
mystery  of  the  coming  of  divine  truth  into 
human  minds.  And  this  is  exactly  so. 
It  does  not  invade  the  field  of  metaphysics 


64  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

or  doctrinal  theology.  But  what  is  it  to 
study  the  Bible  ?  Is  it  to  stand  in  motion- 
less awe  contemplating  the  inscrutable  ? 
Or  is  it  to  learn  more  and  more  of  the 
invisible  by  that  to  which  the  methods  of 
science  can  be  applied  ? 

By  this  time  you  will  surely  agree  that 
I  have  not  rashly  precipitated  you  unpre- 
pared and  unwarned  into  methods  of  Bible 
study  which  some  declare  untried  and 
dangerous.  The  method  is  neither  new 
nor  irrational,  though  prejudice  has  seemed 
to  demand  this  brief  digression.  Let  us, 
then,  take  up  the  special  problem,  asking 
ourselves,  on  the  basis  of  all  the  testimony, 
logically  compared  and  sifted,  What  was 
the  discourse,  if  any,  in  its  fundamental 
nature  and  purport,  which  underlies  our 
so-called  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ? 

We  begin  with  what  is  perhaps  a  more 
important  question  than  it  seems,  the  occa- 
sion and  circumstances,  and  the  persons 
addressed.  On  this  point  we  have  appar- 
ently  three   witnesses,   though    really   by 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  65 

derivation   the   three   are   one.     Compare 
in  any  gospel  harmony  the  description  in 
Matthew  and  Luke  of  the  assembled  mul- 
titudes with  that  of  Mk.  3  : 7-14,  and  you 
will  see  that  with  minor  changes  they  are 
word   for  word  the   same.*     Moreover,  it 
is  quite  clear  that  Matthew  has  here  sim- 
ply borrowed  from  Mark ;  f    for,  whereas 
in  Mark  there  is  a  manifest  reason  for  the 
assemblage,  even  from  Perasa,  Idumea,  and 
Phoenicia,  since   Jesus'  fame  as    a    healer 
has  had  time  to  spread;  in  Matthew  the 
assemblage    is    quite    unaccountable,    for 
here   the    mighty  works    of   Jesus  are  as 
yet  in    the  future,  save  for  the  sweeping 
generalization  of  4:23.     Even  "his  disci- 
ples," although  addressed  according  to  5  :  1, 
were  not  called  until  long  after. 

Luke  (6:12-19)  has  made  similar  use 
of  Mark,  his  predecessor  in  the  field, 
though  he  has  not  committed  the  anachro- 
nisms of  Matthew.     He  even  improves  a 

*  See  Appendix  A  (i).  The  Historical  Setting,  p.  121. 
t  Practically  all  of  Mark  is  taken  up  in  Matthew. 


F 


66  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

little  on  the  order  of  Mark,  putting  first 
Jesus'  retirement  to  "  the  mountain  "  and 
choosing  of  the  twelve ;  then,  "  he  came 
down  with  them  and  stood  on  a  plain;" 
then  he  describes  in  Mark's  language  the 
vast  multitude  assembled  there,  who  form 
the  background  of  the  audience.* 

But  this  too  is  a  misunderstanding. 
Has  Jesus  an  appointment  with  the  vast 
multitudes  ?  How  then  can  he  and  they 
so  conveniently  meet  on  the  plain,  when 
he  has  been  all  night  on  the  mountain  ? 
Doubtless  the  "  plain  "  was  the  real  gather- 
ing place  of  the  multitude,  as  Mark  and 
Luke  relate ;  for  "  the  mountain  "  (mean- 
ing the  highland  country  back  from  the 
populous  plain  by  the  lake)  is  Jesus'  regu- 
lar place  of  retirement  from  the  pressure 
of  the  crowds  from  the  cities.  Luke  prob- 
ably alters  the  situation  from  "  mountain  " 
to  "  plain  "  for  this  reason.  But  what 
both  Matthew  and  Luke  have  failed  to 
observe,  in  borrowing  Mark's  description 

*  Appendix  A  (i),  p.  121. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  67 

of  the  crowd,  is  that  in  Mark  the  situation 
is  chosen  for  a  reason  just  the  opposite 
of  that  which  appeals  to  them.  Jesus  in 
Mark's  account  is  not  seeking,  but  avoid- 
ing, the  multitude.  They  had  come  to- 
gether on  the  lake-shore  in  overwhelming 
numbers,  attracted  by  the  fame  of  Jesus' 
miracles  of  healing.  But  instead  of  allow- 
ing them  to  throng  him  and  frustrate  his 
real  mission  by  importunities  for  physical 
help,  Jesus  retired  to  the  mountain,  elud- 
ing the  throng,  and  calling  to  him  only 
those  "  whom  he  himself  would,"  of  whom 
"  he  appointed  twelve  that  they  might  be 
with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them 
forth  to  preach."  The  wisdom  of  this 
course  is  obvious.  Now  it  is  at  this  point 
that  Matthew  and  Luke  both  introduce 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  rightly,  so  far 
as  occasion  is  concerned,  wrongly,  so  far  as 
regards  the  audience  addressed.  For  the 
very  opening  words  show  that  it  is  really 
addressed,  not  to  the  motley  crowd,  but  to 
an  inner  circle  of  Jesus'  followers,  who  are 


68  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

to  be  subjects  of  the  kingdom,  and  through 
whom  the  importunate  masses  are  to  be 
reached.  But  the  later  evangelists,  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  cannot  bear  to  think  that 
that  great  multitude  below  formed  no  part 
of  the  audience ;  so  Matthew  makes  Jesus 
take  them  with  him  up  into  the  mount, 
and  Luke  makes  him  and  the  disciples 
come  down  again  to  them  into  the  plain. 
But  the  limited  character  of  the  circle 
really  addressed,  judging  by  the  implica- 
tions of  the  discourse  itself,  forms,  as  you 
cannot  fail  to  see,  a  factor  of  no  small 
importance  for  our  understanding  of  it. 

The  occasion  settled,  we  have  next  to 
consider  the  great  contrasts  in  represen- 
tation of  its  content  between  Luke  and 
Matthew.  And  first  of  all  the  most  ex- 
tensive ;  the  masses  of  discourse  which 
form  part  of  the  Sermon  in  Matthew, 
but  in  Luke  are  given  as  uttered  on 
other  occasions.  We  may  take  two  ex- 
amples. First  is  the  long  discourse  on 
earthly     and    heavenly     riches,     Mt.    6 : 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  69 

19-34,  whose  connection  with  the  pre- 
ceding section  on  the  true  worship  seems 
to  be  merely  the  refrain,  "  Thy  Father 
which  seeth  in  secret  shall  recompense 
thee."  * 

In  Lk.  12  :  13-34  this  same  discourse  on 
earthly  versus  heavenly  riches  is  given, 
but  in  a  larger  connection,  f  It  follows 
on  a  parable  of  the  rich  fool,  who  knew 
no  better  wherein  life  consisteth  than 
when  he  had  increased  in  wealth  to  pull 
down  his  barns  and  build  greater,  and 
bid  his  soul  enjoy  herself.  The  contrast 
of  the  ravens  that  have  "  neither  store- 
house nor  barn,"  yet  are  fed  by  God, 
and  of  the  lilies  clothed  by  Him,  is  so 
inimitably  apposite  that  we  may  be  sure 
this  Lucan  connection  is  correct.  In  fact 
we  may  test  our  synthesis  by  a  compari- 
son of  the  two  parts  which  in  Luke 
alone  appear  united.  Matthew  taken  by 
itself   has   nothing   to   explain   the  philo- 

*  See  Appendix  A  (8),  p.  149. 
t  See  Appendix  C,  p.   186. 


70  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

sophical  turn  of  the  warning  against 
material  anxiety  in  the  words,  "  Is  not 
the  life  more  than  the  food  ?  "  (Mt.  6:35). 
But  in  Luke  the  very  question  here  an- 
swered, the  question  wherein  a  mans  life 
really  does  consist,  whether  in  provision 
of  food  and  clothing,  or  something  else, 
is  the  question  raised  at  the  outset 
(Lk.  -12  :  15).  Moreover,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  the  model  for  the  rich 
man  who  seeks  only  pleasure  as  the 
highest  good  is  no  other  than  the  Solo- 
mon of  Ecclesiastes,*  a  book  never 
employed  with  approval  in  the  New 
Testament ;  and  if  so,  how  significant 
the  comparison,  "  For  even  Solomon  in 
all  his  glory  was  not  arrayed  like  one  of 
these !  " 

But  what  led  Jesus  to  this  discourse 
on  earthly  versus  heavenly  riches  ?  Luke 
is  explicit.  As  he  was  teaching,  a  man 
in  the  crowd  appealed  to  him  for  a 
service  often  rendered  by  the  synagogue 

*  Compare  Eccl.  1  :  12,  16  ;    2  :  i  — 1 7. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  71 

rabbi,*  "  Master,  bid  my  brother  divide  the 
inheritance  with  me."  Instead  of  acced- 
ing, Jesus  refused  to  be  made  a  judge 
and  divider,  and  related  the  parable 
referred  to  as  a  warning  against  the 
spirit  of  covetousness,  to  show  how  a 
man  should,  and  how  he  should  not, 
"  take  thought  for  his  life." 

It  is  simply  inconceivable  that  Luke 
should  have  invented  this  admirable  his- 
torical setting  and  context.  So  charac- 
teristic a  scene  can  be  nothing  else  but 
the  true  occasion  of  the  discourse ;  the 
setting  created  for  it  by  Matthew  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  the  reverse  of 
felicitous.f   and    can    only    be     accounted 

*  Synagogue  was  town-meeting,  and  rabbi  was  lawyer. 
It  was  natural  that  arbitration  should  be  one  of  the  con- 
stant and  most  useful  functions  of  the  office.  Paul's 
rebuke  of  the  church  in  Corinth  for  resorting  to  heathen 
courts,  I  Cor.  6:  1-7,  gains  in  force  and  intelligibility  from 
knowledge  of  the  synagogue  practice.  Jesus'  declination 
of  the  office  of  arbitrator  is  an  instance  in  point  of  the 
distinction  we  have  already  drawn  (p.  29)  between  his 
method  of  teaching  and  that  of  the  scribes. 

t  See  Appendix  A  (8),  p.  148. 


72  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

for  as  an  attempt  at  synthesis  (on  the 
theme  of  "recompense,"  Mt.  6:  1 8)  which 
has  resulted  in  worse  disintegration.* 

Or  take  again  the  Lord's  prayer.  It 
is  attached  in  Mt.  6  :  7-15  to  the  second 
antithesis  illustrating  the  true  acts  of 
worship.  The  thrice  given  refrain,  "  and 
thy  Father  which  seeth  in  secret  shall 
recompense  thee,"  concludes  the  illustra- 
tion from  prayer  in  v.  6.  What  fol- 
lows is  in  the  nature  of  appended  login 
on  prayer.  The  saying  of  vv.  14-15  is 
given  again  by  Matthew  himself  in  its 
true  connection  in  18:21-35,  and  is  a 
parallel  to  Mk.  n  :  25.  The  Lord's 
prayer,  in  simpler  form,  without  the 
explanatory  clauses  of  Matthew,  is  given 
by  Luke  as  part  of  a  great  discourse  on 
prayer   including,  besides    this,  the    com- 

*  The  hope  of  better  results  from  modern  than 
from  early  synthesis  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  modern 
motive  is  simply  historical  and  critical,  whereas  the 
ancient  was  as  a  rule  simply  practical,  either  purely 
mnemonic  {e.g.  Mk.  9  :  33-50)  or  in  the  direct  inter- 
est of  edification. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  7} 

parison  of  God's  giving  to  that  of  earthly- 
fathers  in  Mt.  7  :  7-1 1  ("  Ask  and  it  shall 
be  given  you,"  etc.).*  But  neither  of 
these  formed  part  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  according  to  Luke.  No ;  Jesus 
gave  these  teachings  on  prayer,  together 
with  the  pattern  prayer,  on  a  certain 
occasion  when,  as  he  was  praying,  his 
disciples  came  and  asked  him  :  "  Lord, 
teach  us  a  prayer,  as  John  the  Baptist 
taught  his  disciples."  f  How  perverse 
must  be  the  mind  which  designates  this 
a  fictitious  setting !  How  blind  to  what 
we  might  learn  from  the  divergences  of 
our  witnesses,  the  man  who  can  do  no 
better  than  hurry  to  the  rescue  with  the 
harmonistic  suggestion  :  "  Perhaps  Jesus 
taught  the  same  prayer  twice  !  " 

In    a   lecture  of  this  kind  I  cannot,  of 

*  Appendix  C,  p.  181. 

t  Again  a  common  practice  of  the  rabbi.  Forms  of 
prayer  for  various  occasions  were  taught  the  unlearned. 
The  Baptist  in  this,  as  in  his  fastings  and  his  puritanic 
ideas,  was  in  sympathy  with  the  best  type  of  Phari- 
saism. 


74  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

course,  go  through  the  entire  list  of  Mat- 
thew's additions,  pointing  out  the  probable 
motive  and  derivation.*  Suffice  it  that 
the  evidence  is  equally  conclusive  in  sev- 
eral other  cases,  and  so  conclusive  that 
those  who  admit  at  all  this  method  of 
study  are  agreed  that  we  must  remove  to 
other  contexts  many  of  these  appended 
logia,  in  order  to  get  back  to  the  original 
discourse.  There  is  no  avoiding  it.  The 
first  step  toward  real  and  trustworthy 
synthesis  is  along  the  beaten  track  of 
analysis. 

But  what  now  of  that  other  great  section 
of  the  Matthaean  discourse,  the  antithesis 
of  morality  and  worship  in  the  old  law 
and  the  new  ?  Were  we  here  to  proceed 
on  the  simple  rule  of  requiring  the  consent 
of  both  witnesses,  the  great  discourse  would 
be  reduced  indeed.  Here,  however,  we 
have  not  a  case  of  material  explicitly 
related  as  belonging  to  another  occasion 
by  another  witness.     As  to  this,  Luke  is 

*  Complete  documentary  analysis  in  Appendix  A. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  75 

simply  silent.  Moreover,  we  can  account 
for  his  silence,  and  there  are  even,  as  we 
saw,*  traces,  perhaps  faint,  but  significant, 
of  the  former  presence  of  the  missing  an- 
tithesis. We  are  really  applying  the  same 
principles  as  before,  when  we  say  of  the 
notion  of  composition  by  Matthew,  The 
mind  which  can  attribute  a  literary  and 
rhetorical  unit  of  such  symmetry  and 
beauty  to  such  a  compiler  is  either  inept 
or  perverse.  Imagine  our  evangelist 
framing  the  exquisite  literary  balance  of 
the  principle  Mt.  6: 1,  followed  by  the 
three  strophes,  2-4,  5-6,  16-18;  and  then 
wantonly  destroying  it  by  inserting  the 
general  instructions  on  prayer,  vv.  7-15! 
Or  the  five  antitheses  on  the  new  morality, 
Mt.  5:21-48;  and  then  throwing  in 
between  the  first  and  second  the  say- 
ings about  reconciliation  in  5  :  23-26!  f 
No,  we  may  posit,  as  nearly  all  critics  now 
do,    a  third  hand  between  the    evangelist 

*  Supra,  p.  17-19. 

t  Appendix  A  (5),  p.  138. 


76  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

and  the  speaker ;  and  we  may,  with  some, 
make  this  precanonical  author  responsible 
for  the  exquisite  literary  finish.*  At  least 
he  who  has  so  marred  it  cannot  be  the 
same  who  made  it.  But  artistic  as  it  cer- 
tainly is,  to  the  degree  of  almost  poetic 
refinement  of  expression,  I  see  not  why 
all  of  even  the  rhetorical  beauty  must  have 
been  the  work  of  writer  rather  than  of 
speaker.  Why  may  it  not  have  character- 
ized some  of  the  more  studied  discourses 
of  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  rather  than 
the  untrained  pen  of  some  Galilean  pub- 
lican ?  We  cannot,  indeed,  imagine  Jesus' 
teaching  as  confined  to  studied  and  arti- 
ficial forms ;  but  neither  was  it  always 
unstudied.  Such  discourses  as  that  on  the 
Baptist,  "  What  went  ye  out  for  to  see  ?  " 

*  There  are  also  facts  tending  to  show  that  the  artistic 
form,  while  precanonical,  is  still  secondary.  E.g.  the 
woes  against  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  in  Matthew  23, 
are  seven  in  number,  in  Luke  2,  three  against  the 
Pharisees  followed  by  three  against  the  scribes.  Both 
cannot  be  original.  See  Appendix  A  (6),  p.141,  and 
Hawkins's  Hora  Synoptiae,  pp.  1 31-136. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  77 

or  that  on  the  sign  of  Jonah,*  can  never 
have  lacked  the  semi-lyric  form  of  genuine 
Hebrew  prophecy. f 

With  the  removal  of  the  intrusive  ele- 
ments imported  by  our  first  evangelist, 
and  the  restoration  of  those  omitted  by 
Luke  we  hold  the  key  to  the  actual  dis- 
course which  has  come  to  be  our  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.  Far  from  being  a  ram- 
bling agglomeration  of  noble  ideas  on 
half  a  dozen  different  subjects,  this  origi- 
nal nucleus  had  the  characteristic  unity 
of  conception  of  the  parables.  In  respect 
to  the  section  forming  the  main  body  of 
the  Matthaean  discourse,  the  great  antithe- 

*  Appendix  C,  p.  232. 

f  This  striking,  perhaps  half-unconscious  tendency 
in  the  reported  discourses  of  Jesus  as  in  the  Prophets 
toward  a  poetic  and  even  lyric  structure  is  well  illustrated 
in  the  translations  of  Moffatt,  in  his  Historical  New 
Testament,  1901.  We  refer  the  reader  interested  in 
this  special  feature  of  our  subject  to  the  works  cited 
by  Mr.  Moffatt,  p.  xx  ;  as  regards  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  in  particular,  to  the  articles  by  Professor  C.  A. 
Briggs  in  the  Expository  Times,  viii,  pp.  393  f.,  452f., 
493  f.;  ix,  p.  69  f. 


78  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

ses  on  the  "  righteousness "  of  the  new 
kingdom,  the  Torah  of  Messiah,  we  must 
apply  to  Luke  the  same  principle  we  have 
just  applied  to  Matthew.  This  time  it  is 
the  Lucan  report  which  decapitates  the 
most  comprehensive  discourse  of  Jesus  on 
the  relation  of  his  doctrine  to  the  past. 
The  commandment  to  manifest  a  spirit  of 
kindness  and  serviceableness  to  all,  even 
to  the  unthankful  and  evil,  in  imitation  of 
the  divine  goodness,  which  in  Lk.  6  :  27-38 
stands  deprived  of  its  preceding  context, 
is  the  counterpart  to  the  righteousness  of 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees.*  This  contrast 
formed  the  main  subject  of  the  original 
discourse.  We  have  only  to  add  at  begin- 
ning and  end  the  material  uttered,  on  the 
undisputed  authority  of  both  witnesses,  on 

*  It  is  a  further  corroboration  of  our  contention  as  to 
the  former  presence  in  the  Lucan  report  of  the  omitted 
antitheses,  that  in  the  case  referred  to  in  our  text  the 
motive  appealed  to,  "  Your  reward  shall  be  great,"  etc. 
Lk.  6  :  35,  although  wanting  in  the  parallel  section  of 
Matthew,  is  that,  even  to  phraseology,  of  the  portions 
given  by  Matthew  only.     See  above,  p.  38. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  79 

this  occasion,  to  have  the  "  sermon  "  in  its 
original  unity  and  completeness.  I  mean 
at  the  beginning  the  Beatitudes,  which 
introduce  the  subject  with  a  congratulation 
of  the  hearers  on  the  choice  they  have 
made,  and  at  the  end  the  concluding  appli- 
cation and  parable  on  the  right  and  wrong 
use  of  the  principles  enunciated.  We 
have  seen  that  this  conception  of  the 
essential  character  and  purpose  of  the 
great  discourse,  as  deliberately  enunciat- 
ing "  the  Law  of  Christ,"  is  of  no  small 
importance  to  our  understanding  of,  first, 
his  own  conception  of  his  mission  ;  second, 
the  interpretations  subsequently  put  upon 
it  in  the  anti-legalistic  sense  by  Paul,  in 
the  neo-legalistic  sense  by  James,  in  the 
mystical  sense  by  John. 

When  we  come  to  actual  restoration  of 
the  discourse  there  is  wide  difference  in 
detail  between  our  two  authorities ;  but 
in  general  Luke's  account  will  approve 
itself  to  the  critic  as  the  simpler  and  more 
original,  Matthew's   as   expanded    by    the 


80  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

attachment  here  and  there  of  extraneous 
logia.  Among  these  I  have  mentioned 
5  :  23-26,  Reconciliation  better  than  Sacri- 
fice, and  Let  Israel  be  reconciled  with  God 
ere  too  late.*  One  need  only  compare  the 
true  context  of  25,  26  in  Lk.  12  :  54-59  (In- 
terpret the  Signs  of  the  Times)  f  to  see  that 
it  has  really  nothing  to  do  with  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  spirit  of  anger  in  the  an- 
tithesis of  Mt.  5:21,  22.  Similar  reason- 
ing applies  to  the  sayings  on  the  Member 
that  causes  Stumbling,  5  :  29,  30,  attached  to 
the  antithesis  to  the  seventh  command- 
ment. %  We  find  it  in  its  true  connection  in 
Mk.  9 :  43-48.  The  Salt,  the  Shining  Light 
(5:  13-16  =  Mk.  4:21,  22 ;  9:49,  50),  some 
of  the  beatitudes,  and  a  few  minor  touches 
are  also  derived  from  other  contexts.  § 
Our  limitations  forbid  discussion  in  detail ; 
only  a  guiding  principle  or  two  can  be 
indicated     as     between     variant     reports. 

*  Appendix  A  (5),  p.  138.        \  Appendix  C,  p.  246. 

%  Appendix  A  (6),  p.  140. 

§  Appendix  A  (3),  p.  130,  and  Appendix  C,  p.  258. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  81 

Follow  the  form  most  closely  allied  to  the 
principal  theme  as  already  established. 
Reject  that  which  is  not  germane,  injures 
the  sequence  of  thought,  and  whose  pres- 
ence can  be  better  accounted  for  other- 
wise than  by  utterance  in  this  connection. 
When  the  process  of  comparison  is  com- 
plete, unless  you  differ  widely  from  me 
in  your  critical  judgments,  you  will  have 
before  you  as  the  original  discourse  that 
lies  behind  our  reports,  the  following 
initial  address  of  Jesus  to  those  whom  he 
had  gathered  about  him  as  adherents  in 
the  effort  to  give  reality  to  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  I  present  it  with  such  aid  from 
historical  setting  and  otherwise  as  we  can 
gather  from  all  the  gospel  sources,  employ- 
ing such  typographical  devices  of  titles,  sub- 
titles, spacing,  leading,  paragraphing,  and 
alignment  to  indicate  strophic  or  other 
rhetorical  form,  as  the  modern  art  of 
printing  suggests.  I  have  also  made  a 
somewhat  freer  translation  than  that  of 
Authorized  or  Revised  Version,  and  added 


82  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

reference   to    parallel   reports,    where   we 
have  them,  in  the  headings,  besides  a  few 
references  of  an  explanatory  character  in 
the  margin.      Naturally  the  report  which 
seems  to  present  the   fullest   trustworthy 
statement  is  made  the  basis  of  each  para- 
graph,   whether     Matthew's,     Mark's,    or 
Luke's.     In  a  few  cases  the  passage  from 
one  authority  to  another  requires  the  sup- 
plying of  a  word.    Words  thus  supplied  are 
enclosed  in   (  ).     Omissions  are  indicated 
by  *  *  *  with  suspended  C  (i)(2) (3)  when 
the    omitted   material  is    given    in   proper 
context   in    Appendix    C.     Where  variant 
readings  have  been  adopted,  a  reference 
is  given  to  Appendix  B,  for  the  evidence. 
The   adoption    of  a  different  order,  or  of 
one  evangelist's    report   in    preference    to 
another  is  similarly  indicated  by  reference 
to  Appendix  A.     In  typographical  arrange- 
ment the  same  plan  has  been  followed  as 
in  Appendix  C,  to  which  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred for  further  explanation  and  compar- 
ison of  similar  discourses. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  83 

Discourse  of  Jesus  on  the  Higher  Law  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God 

The  Occasion 
Mk.  3:  7-15"  =  Mt.  4:  24-25;   12:  15-16  = 

Mk.  3  "And  Jesus  with  his  disciples  with- 
drew to  the  lake  shore ;  and  a  great  multi- 
tude from  Galilee  followed —  8and  from 
Judaea  and  from  Jerusalem  and  from  Idu- 
maea  and  beyond  Jordan  and  about  Tyre 
and  Sidon  a  great  multitude,  hearing  how 
great  things  he  did  came  to  him.*  9And 
he  bade  his  disciples  let  a  boat  be  in  at- 
tendance on  him"  on  account  of  the  crowd,  <>  Mk.  4:1. 
that  they  might  not  crush  him;  10for  he 
had  healed  many,  so  that  they  thrust  them- 

*  The  structure  of  this  sentence,  supplementing  the 
"  great  multitude  from  Galilee  "  with  a  second  "  great 
multitude"  from  remoter  parts,  is  one  of  the  indications 
referred  to  in  my  In/rod.,  p.  206,  that  the  narrative  of 
our  Mark  employs  an  older  and  simpler  source,  the  char- 
acteristic "graphic  touches  of  Mark"  being  ordinarily 
attached  in  this  supplemental  style,  as  indicated  above 

by  the .     Note  again  at  the  end  of  this  paragraph 

3:  7-15",  how  the  list  of  apostles'  names  is  attached. 


5:6. 


84  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

selves  upon  him  to  touch  him  —  all  that 
«  Mk.  s :  27,  had  scourges."  *  u  And  the  unclean  spirits 
whenever  they  beheld  him  fell  down  be- 
fore him  and  cried  out,  Thou  art  the  Son 
1:23-24;  of  God.6  12But  he  commanded  them  re- 
peatedly not  to  make  him  known. 

13  Then  he  goes  up  into  the  mountain 
(country),  and  summons  those  whom  he 
himself  desired  and  they  went  away  to  him. 
14  And  he  appointed  the  twelve,!  that  they 

*  The  word  is  peculiar,  the  only  other  instances  in  the 
N.  T.  of  its  use  in  this  metaphorical  sense  being  in  Lk. 
7:21,  and  in  Mark's  story  of  the  woman  who  was 
healed  by  touching  Jesus'  garment.  Verses  9-12  thus 
show  their  generalizing  editorial  character  ;  for  in  three 
consecutive  instances  we  have  the  anticipation  by  a  pro- 
leptic  general  statement  of  striking  instances,  the  full  ac- 
count of  which  follows  in  the  course  of  the  story  —  the 
attendance  of  the  boat  (4:  1),  healing  by  mere  contact 
from  the  crowd  (5 :  27-29),  and  recognition  by  evil 
spirits  (5:  6).  In  the  third  case  this  is  already  the  sec- 
ond instance  of  such  anticipation  by  the  evangelist,  he 
having  made  a  similar  prolepsis  in  1 :  24,  34.  In  the 
second  case  also  the  generalization  is  repeated,  the  evan- 
gelist even  going  so  far  in  6 :  56  as  to  declare  that  "  all 
who  touched  him  were  made  whole." 

t  The  better  texts  omit  "  whom  he  also  called 
apostles." 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  85 

might  stay  with  him,  and  that  he  might 
(thereafter)  send  them  out  to  preach  15and 
to  have  authority  to  exorcise  demons."  "6:7, 12,  v. 

PART  I 

THE  EXORDIUM  :  JESUS  CONGRATULATES 
THOSE  WHO  SEEK  THE  KINGDOM.  CON- 
TRAST OF  EARTHLY  WITH  HEAVENLY 
GOOD 

(1)   Blessedness  of  those  who  seek  Heavenly 
Things 

Lk.  6:  20-23  =  Mt.  5  :  I-I2 

Lk.  620And  he  himself,  lifting  up  his 
eyes  on  his  disciples,  said  : 

Blessed  are  ye  poor, 

for  yours  is  the  kingdom  of  God. 

21  Blessed  are  ye  that  hunger,  *  *  *  B 
for  ye  shall  be  filled. 

Blessed  are  ye  that  weep,  *  *  * B 
for  ye  shall  laugh. 

22  Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  hate 

you 
*  *  *  b  an(j  caS£  ouj.   y0ur  name   as 

P  VI 1      *     *     * 

Rejoice  *  *  *R  and  leap  for  joy; 


86  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

«mi.  6:  i, 4,  for,    lo,    your   reward"   in    heaven    is 

6|  l8,  great ; 

after  the  same  manner  did  they  to  the 
prophets  *  *  *.B 

(2)    Wretchedness  of  Such  as  are  content  with 
Earthly  Good 

Lk.  6 :  24-26 

24  But  woe  to  you  that  are  rich, 
»  Mt.  6:2,5,  for  ye  have  had  your  comfort  in  full.6 

l6#  ,&  Woe  to  you  that  are  well  filled, 

for  ye  shall  be  hungry. 

Woe  to  you  that  laugh,  *  *  *  B 

for  ye  shall  mourn. 

26  Woe  when  men  shall  speak  well  of  you ; 
after  the  same  manner  did  they  to  the 
false  prophets.* 

*  Reasons  for  the  textual  changes  indicated  are  given 
in  Appendix  B  (2).  Reasons  for  following  the  Lucan 
as  against  the  Matthrean  version  as  a  basis  in  Appen- 
dix A  (2).  It  will  be  seen  that  the  editorial  additions  in 
the  Lucan  form  are  inappreciable  in  extent,  consisting 
almost  exclusively  in  the  addition  of  the  single  word 
"now"  in  verses  21,  22,  and  25,  to  make  it  clear  that 
the  blessedness  of  the  hungry,  sorrowful,  hated,  is  in 
their  heavenly  reward,  not  in  present  conditions. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  87 

PART   II 

THE  MORAL  STANDARD  OF  THE  KINGDOM  : 
JESUS  CONTRASTS  THE  NEW  REQUIRE- 
MENT  WITH   THE   OLD 

Thesis:  The  Divine  Commonwealth  is 
founded  on  a  Law  of  Absolute  Right- 
eousness 

Jesus  shows  that  the  Self-imposed  Standard  of 
the  Free  Children  of  the  Kingdom  is  stricter 
than  the  Written  Code 

Mt.  5:17,  19-20 

Mt.  5  17  Think  not  that  I  came  to  undo 
the  Law ; 
I  came  not  to  undo,  but  to  com- 
plete. 

#  *  *  #  *  A 

19  Whosoever  therefore  shall  relax 
one  of  these  least  command- 
ments 

and  teach  men  so 

shall  be  called  least"  in  the  king-  ai Cor.  15: 9. 
dom  of  God. 

But  whoso  shall  do  and  teach, 

he  shall  be  called  great  in  the 
kingdom  of  God.A 


88  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

20  For  I  say  unto  you,  Unless  your 
righteousness  abound 
beyond  that  of  the  scribes  and 

Pharisees 
ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God. 

(i)  The  Royal  Law.  In  Five  Antitheses 
Jesus  illustrates  the  Higher  Principle  of 
Duty  to  Man,  contrasting  it  with  the  Cur- 
rent Rules  of  Conduct 

Mt.  5  :  21-48  mostly.     Fragments  in  Luke 

First  Antithesis  :  He  forbids  the  Spirit  of Hatred 
as  against  Prohibition  of  Murder  and  Libel 

Mt.  5 :  21-22 

Mt.  5  21  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  to 
the  ancients, 

Thou  shalt  not  kill,  and  whoso- 
ever killeth 

he  shall  be    amenable  to   judg- 
ment. 
22  But  I  say  unto  you, 

Whosoever    is    angry    with    his 
brother 

shall  be  amenable  to  judgment. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  89 

(Moreover  it  was  said),Bf3)  * 
Whosoever  shall  call  his  brother 

Scoundrel 
shall  be  amenable  to  the  court. 
23  But  I  say  unto  you, 
Whosoever  calleth  him  Simpleton 
shall  be  amenable  to  the  hell  of 

fact 

Second  Antithesis:    Jesus  forbids    the   Impure 

Thought  as  against  the  Adulterous  Deed 

ML  5:27-28,  3 1-32-^  =  Lk.  16:18 

Mt.  5  ^Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said, 
Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 
28  But  I  say  unto  you, 
Every   one    that    looketh    on   a 

woman  lustfully 
hath  already  committed  adultery 
with  her  in  his  heart. 

*  For  the  conjectural  emendation  of  text  see  Appen- 
dix B  (3)  and  Note  by  J.  P.  Peters,  D.D.,  in  Journ.  of 
Bib.  Lit.,  1892,  i.  p.  131. 

tThe  sense  is,  the  new  standard  is  absolute.  The 
malicious  thought,  the  opprobrious  epithet,  even  if  not 
legally  actionable,  will  suffice  to  cast  into  the  outer  dark- 
ness, the  place  where  offal  was  destroyed.  Jewish  law 
was  exceptionally  severe  against  slander  and  libel.  The 
new  law  surpasses  even  this. 


90  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

31  Moreover  it  was  said, 

Whoso  would  put  away  his  wife 
must   give   her  a  certificate  of 
divorce.* 

32  But  I  say  unto  you, 

Every  one  that  putteth  away  his 
wj£e     *     *     *  b(4)   committeth 

"Mk.io:n-  adultery"; 

12;  Lk.  16:  ancj  whoso  marrieth  her  that  was 

18. 

divorced  committeth  adultery. 

Third  Antithesis :   Jesus  forbids  Untruthfulness 
as  against  the  Prohibition  of  Perjury 

Mt.  5 :  33-37 
Mt.  5  33 Again  ye  have  heard  that  it  was 
said  to  the  ancients, 
Forswear  not  thyself, 
but  perform  thine  oaths  to  the 
Lord. 

34  But  I  say  unto  you 
Swear  not  at  all : 

neither  by  heaven,  for  it  is  God's 
throne ; 

35  nor  by  earth,  for  it  is  his  foot- 

stool ; 

*  A  humane  restriction  of  the  Mosaic  law  upon  the 
unlimited  right  of  repudiation  allowed  to  the  husband  in 
the  days  when  woman  had  been  a  chattel  only. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  91 

nor  by  Jerusalem,  for  it  is  the 
city  of  the  great  King ; 
36  neither  by  thy  head,   for   thou 
canst  not  make  one  hair  white 
or  black.* 
37 "But  let  your  yea  be  yea,  and  «jas.  5:12. 
your  nay  nay,B(5) 
what  exceedeth  this  is  from  the 
Evil  One.f 

Fourth  Antithesis  :  Jesus  forbids  ///-treatment 
of  Any  Man,  as  against  the  Limitation  of 
Reta/iation 

Mt.  5:38-42;  7:  12  =  Lk.  6:  29-31 

Mt.  5  38  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said, 
An  eye  (only)  for  an  eye,  and  a 
tooth  (only)  %  for  a  tooth. 
39  But  I  say  unto  you, 
Resist  not  the  violent. 

*  Mt.  23:16-22  shows  how  scribal  casuists  had 
yielded  to  the  besetting  sin  of  their  kind,  inventing 
forms  of  oaths  for  evading  their  obligation.  A  simple 
yes  or  no  must  suffice  in  the  kingdom. 

f  That  is,  proceeds  from  the  intent  to  deceive  or  the 
assumption  of  its  possibility.  Both  are  inadmissible  sup- 
positions in  the  divine  commonwealth. 

\  Another  humane  limitation  imposed  by  the  Mosaic 
law  on  the  wild  blood  revenge  of  the  primitive  Bedouin; 
cf.  Gen.  4 :  23-24. 


92  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

Lk.  6  ^  To  him  that  smiteth  thee  on  the 
cheek 
offer  also  the  other. 
Mt.  5  40And  if  any  would  sue  thee  and 
take  thy  cloak* 
let  him  have  the  tunic  as  well. 
41  And  whoso  would  impress  thee 
for  one  mile, 
go  with  him  two. 
Give  to  him  that  asketh, 
and  from  him  that  would  borrow 
turn  not  away. 

7  ^  So   whatsoever    ye   would    that 
men  should  do  unto  you, 
do  even  so  unto  them  *  *  *.B<6) 

Fifth  Antithesis :  Jesus  imposes  an  Unlimited 
and  Universal  as  against  a  Limited  Obliga- 
tion of  Kindness 

Mt.  5  :  43-48  =  Lk.  6 :  27-28,  32-36 

Mt.  5  43  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said 
Love  thy  neighbor  and   hate  f 
thine  enemy, 

*  That  is,  show  himself  a  merciless  creditor.  Mosaic 
law  forbade  taking  the  cloak  over  night,  Ex.  22:  26-27; 
Deut.  24:  10-13. 

t  A   Semitic    method    of    emphasizing   a   distinction 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  93 

44  But  I  say  unto  you, 
Love  your  enemies, 
and  pray  for  them  that  persecute 

you; 
46  that   ye   may  be   sons   of   your 

Father  in  heaven. 
For  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise 

on  both  wicked  and  good, 
and  the  rain  to  fall  on  just  and 

unjust. 

46  For  if  ye  love  them  that  love 

you,  what  credit"  have  ye  ?        «  5 :  12 ;  6 : 2, 
Do   not   the  very  tax-gatherers  5>  l6;  Lk- 6: 
the  same  ? 


(cf.  Mt.  lo:37  =  Lk.  14:26).  The  O.  T.  does  not, 
of  course,  affirmatively  inculcate  hatred,  even  to  ene- 
mies, but  simply  assumes,  and  occasionally  exemplifies 
it,  as  in  the  imprecatory  psalms  ;  this  being  involved 
in  the  limitation  of  its  requirement  of  good-will  to  the 
"neighbor"  (Lev.  19:  18).  The  present  passage  shows 
that  Jesus  is  not  ignorant  of  the  real  meaning  of  the 
commandment  Lev.  19:  18,  although  he  employs  it  (Mt. 
22:39),  and  even  —  in  the  haggadic  sense  —  interprets 
and  applies  it  (Lk.  10:27-37)  >n  a  sense  transcending 
its  original  intent.  In  other  words,  he  is  perfectly  con- 
scious that  he  is  imposing  a  higher  standard  than  that 
of  the  Torah. 


94  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

47  And   if   ye  say    '  God   be   with 
you  '  *  to  your  brethren  only, 
what  credit  have  ye  ? 
Do  not   the   very  Gentiles   the 
same  ? 

Lk.  6  ffi  But  love  your  enemies, 

and  do  good  and  lend  without 

hope  of  return 
and  your  reward  shall  be  great," 
and   ye    shall    be    sons    of    the 

Highest ; 
for  he  is  kind  even  to  the  un- 
thankful and  the  wicked. 
Mt  5  48  Ye  therefore  shall  be  complete  in 
goodness f 
as    your    Father    in    heaven    is 
complete. B(7) 

♦Literally,  "give  greeting."  But  the  Jewish  greet- 
ing was  a  sacred  blessing  which,  it  was  thought,  would 
be  profaned  if  invoked  on  the  heathen  or  infidel.  Hence 
the  prohibition  in  2  Jn.  io-ii,  which  shows  more  of 
the  spirit  rebuked  by  Jesus  in  Mk.  9 :  38  than  that  of  the 
present  passage.  Hence  also  the  general  directions  in 
Mt.  10:  12-13  >  Lk.  10:  4.  We  translate  "say  'God  be 
with  you '  "  to  bring  out  the  correspondence  with  v.  44, 
"  Pray  for  them  that  persecute  you." 

t  TVXeios  is  doubtless  employed  here  by  the  evangelist 
precisely  as  in  19  :  21,  of  the  ultimate  stage  of  righteous- 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  95 

(2)  The  Spiritual  Worship.  In  Three  Fur- 
ther Antitheses  Jesus  illustrates  the 
Higher  Principle  of  Duty  to  God,  con- 
trasting it  with  Current  Types  of  Piety 

Mt.  6:  1-6,  16-18 

The  Principle :    Worship  must  be  in  Spirit  and 
Truth 
Mt.  6:  i 

Mt.  6  1  Take  heed  to  your  acts  of  piety 
that  ye  do  them  not  before  men 

to  be  seen  of  them, 
Otherwise  ye  have  no  reward"  °s^2. 46; 
with  your  Father  in  heaven. 

First  Illustrative  Antithesis :   Almsgiving 
Mt.  6 :  2-4 

Mt.  6  2  Thus  when  thou  art  giving  alms, 
make  not  a  flourish  of  trumpets* 
as  do  the  hypocrites 

ness.  Luke  renders  ad  sensum  oiKrlpfioves,  "  compas- 
sionate "  ;  which  is  correct  in  meaning  but  fails  to  bring 
out  the  contrast  intended  with  the  limited  obligation  as- 
sumed in  the  casuistry  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees. 
Compare  Jesus'  teaching  on  the  limit  of  forgiveness,  Mt. 
18:  21-22. 

*  Probably  only  a  metaphor.     Actual  trumpet  blow- 
ing is  improbable.     Even  an  allusion  to  the  trumpet- 


Lk.6:35. 


96  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

in   the   synagogues  and  on  the 

streets 
that   they  may  be    honored   by 

men. 
Of  a  truth  I  say  unto  you, 
They  have  their  reward"  in  full.* 

3  But  thou,  when  thou  art  giving 

alms, 
let  not  thy  left  hand  know  what 
thy  right  is  doing,  f 

4  that  thine  almsgiving  may  be  in 

secret ; 
And  thy  Father  which  seeth  in 

secret 
shall  recompense  thee.f 

shaped  bronze  orifices  of  the  temple  contribution  boxes, 
which  could  doubtless  be  "  sounded  "  with  a  good-sized 
coin,  is  at  the  best  a  precarious  supposition. 

*  On  the  sense  of  dir^x^^11^  the  technical  term  em- 
ployed in  receipts  in  the  contemporary  Greek  papyri  to 
signify  discharge  of  the  obligation,  see  Deissmann,  Bible 
Studies,  1900,  s.v.  Deissmann  renders,  "They  may  give 
their  receipt  in  full." 

f  Perhaps  an  allusion  to  the  Pharisees'  ostentatious 
passing  of  the  coin  from  one  hand  to  the  other,  that  by- 
standers may  not  fail  to  be  impressed. 

X  The  principle,  "  He  that  giveth  to  the  poor  lendeth 
to  the  Lord,"  is  not  in  dispute.  Granting  that  almsgiving 
is  an  act  of  piety  deserving  reward,  and  so  a  way  to 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  97 

Second  Antithesis :    Prayer 

Mt.  6 : 5-6 

Mt.  6  5  And  when  ye  are  praying 
be  not  like  the  hypocrites  ; 
for  they  love  to  stand  and  pray 

in  the  synagogues 
and  on  the  corners  of  the  streets,* 
that  they  may  be  seen  of  men. 
Of  a  truth  I  say  unto  you, 
They  have  their  reward  in  full. 
6  But  thou,  when  thou  prayest, 
enter  into  the  inner  room 
and  shut  the  door, 
and  pray  in  secret  to  thy  Father; 
and  thy  Father,  which  seeth  in 

secret, 
shall  recompense  thee. 

lay  up  treasure  in  heaven  (cf.  Lk.  16:  1-9),  Jesus  points 
out  that  it  cannot  both  be  laid  up  in  heaven  and  enjoyed 
(in  the  shape  of  honor  from  men)  on  earth.  This  is  sim- 
ply an  illustration  of  the  fallacy  that  the  play-actors'  wor- 
ship (17  rod  uiroKpiTov)  puts  God  under  some  obligation. 
Such  worship  cannot,  for  it  is  not  really  directed  to  him, 
but  to  the  bystanders.  Jesus  is  not  committed,  however, 
by  the  illustration,  to  the  doctrine  that  God  can  be  made 
debtor  to  a  man  by  his  almsgiving  (cf.  Lk.  17:  10). 

*  Overtaken  midway  by  the  hour  of  prayer  (9  A.M., 
or  3  P.M.). 

H 


98  Tbe  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

Third  Antithesis :    Fasting 

Mt.  6:16-18 

Mt.  6  16  And  when  ye  are  fasting, 
be  not  like  the  hypocrites 
wry-faced ; 

for  they  disfigure  their  faces 
that  they  may  figure*  as  fasting 

before  men. 
Of  a  truth  I  say  unto  you, 
They  have  their  reward  in  full. 

17  But  thou,  when  thou  art  fasting, 
Anoint  thy  head  and  wash  thy 

face, 

18  that  thou  appear  not  as  a  faster 

unto  men, 
but  unto  thy  Father  [that  is  in 

secret  ?].B(8) 
And  thy  Father  [that  seeth  in 

secret]  B<8) 
shall  recompense  thee.f 

*' A(f>av[£ov<riv  liirus  (pavGxriv,  a  word-play,  if  not  acci- 
dental. 

f  We  may  notice  that  the  antitheses  of  the  true  wor- 
ship conclude  with  a  reference  to  future  recompense,  as 
did  the  exordium  (Lk.  6:  22)  and  the  antitheses  of  the 
true  ethics  (Lk.  6:  35).     See  above,  pp.  86  and  94. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  99 

PART   III 

APPLICATION  OF  THE  NEW  LAW.  JESUS 
SHOWS  HOW  TO  USE,  AND  HOW  NOT  TO 
USE   ITS   STANDARD 

First  Principle 

Not  for  Censoriousness,  but  Self-correction 
Mt.  7:1-5  =  Lk.  6:  37',  38",  41-42 

Mt.  7  1  Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged  ; 

2  for  with  what  judgment  ye  judge 

ye  shall  be  judged 
[and  with  what  measure  ye  meas- 
ure out,  it  shall  be  measured 
back  to  you?].A(9) 

3  But  why  regardest  thou  the  splin- 

ter in  thy  brother's  eye 
but  considerest  not  the  beam  in 
thine  own  eye  ? 

4  Or   how   wilt   thou    say    to   thy 

brother, 
let  me  remove  the  splinter  from 

thine  eye, 
and,  lo,  there  is  a  beam  in  thine 


own  eye 


5  Hypocrite,  remove  first  the  beam 
from  thine  own  eye 


100         The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

and  then  shalt  thou  see  clearly  to 
remove  the  splinter  from  thy 
brother's  eye. 

Second  Principle 

Reform  must  be  from  Within 
Mt.  7:18;    12 :  a,  35  =  Lk.  6 :  43,  45 

Mt.  7  18  A  good   tree    cannot  bear  bad 
bad  fruit, 
nor  a  rotten  tree  produce  good 
fruit. 
12  ^  Either  make  the  tree  good  and 
its  fruit  good, 
or  make  the  tree  rotten  and  its 
fruit  rotten. 

*****  A(10) 

35  The  good  man  from  his  good  store 
bringeth  forth  good  things, 
and  the  evil  man  from  his  evil 
store  bringeth  forth  evil  things. 

Third  Principle 

Deeds,  not  Words  demanded 
Lk.  6 :  46-49  =  Mt.  7  :  21-27 

Thesis  Lk.  6  ^  And  why  call  ye  me  Lord, 
Lord,  and  do  not  the 
things  which  I  say  ? 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount         101 

Parable  47  Every  one  that  heareth  my  words 
and  doeth  them, 
shall  be  likened  to  a  wise  man, 
Mt.  724bthat    built    his    house    upon    a 
rock.Ii(9) 
48  The    rains    poured    down,    the 
floods  came, 
the  winds  blew  and  beat  upon 

that  house ; 
and  it  fell  not, 
Mt.  725bfor  it  was  founded  on  the  rock. 

26  And  every  one  that  heareth  my 

words 
and  doeth  them  not, 
shall  be  likened  to  a  foolish  man, 
that   built   his  house   upon  the 

sand.B(9) 

27  The  rain  poured  down,  the  floods 

came, 
the  winds  blew  and  beat  upon 

that  house  ; 
and  it  fell 
and  the  fall  thereof  was  great* 

*  O.  Holtzmann  (Le&en/esu,  p.  77)  points  out  that 
with  Jesus  metaphors  from  the  builder's  trade  are  spe- 
cially frequent,  confirming  the  view  that  t£ktuv  in  Mk. 
6:  3  should  be  rendered  "  builder." 


102  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

The  Colophon 
Mk.  1 :  22  =  Mt.  7  :  28  =  Lk.  7 :  i» 

Mt.  7  M  And  it  came  to  pass  when  Jesus 
had  finished  these  sayings,  the  crowds 
were  amazed  at  his  teaching  ;  29  for  his  way 
of  teaching  them  was  as  of  one  that  has 
authority,  and  not  as  their  scribes. 

An  Appended  Incident 

Healing  of  the  Centurion's  Serz'ant 
Lk.  7 :  ib-io  =  Mt.  8 :  5-10,  13  =  Jn.  4 :  46b~54 

Lk.  7  1  And  he  entered  into  Capernaum. 
2  And  a  certain  centurion  had  a  slave  that 
was  dear  to  him,  who  was  sick  and  at  the 
point  of  death.  3And  when  he  heard 
about  Jesus  he  sent  elders  of  the  Jews  unto 

"Acts  10:5.  him/'  asking  him  to  come  and  heal  his 
slave.  4  And  these  came  to  Jesus  and  be- 
sought him  earnestly,  5  saying  that  the  man 

*  Acts  10: 2.  was  worthy''  that  he  should  do  this  for 
him ;  for  he  loveth  our  nation,  and  himself 
built  the  synagogue  for  us.  6And  Jesus 
went  with  them.     But  when  he  was  already 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount         103 

not  far  from  the  house,  the  centurion  sent 

friends"  to  say  to  him,  My  lord,  take  no  "Acts  10: 25 

s  text. 

trouble ;  for  I  am  not  of  dignity  enough 
that  thou  shouldst  enter  beneath  my  roof. 
7  For  this  reason  also  I  did  not  deem  my- 
self worthy  to  come  to  thee  (in  person); 
but  give  direction  by  a  word  and  my  ser- 
vant shall  be  healed.  8  For  I  too  am  a  man 
ranked  under  authority,  having  soldiers 
under  me,  and  I  say  to  one,  Go,  and  he  go- 
eth,  and  to  another,  Come,  and  he  cometh, 
and  to  my  slave,  Do  this,  and  he  doeth  it. 
9  And  when  Jesus  heard  this  he  marvelled 
at  him,  and  turned  and  said  to  the  crowd 
that  followed  him  :  I  tell  you  I  have  not 
seen  so  great  faith  not  even  in  Israel. 

10  Now  when  the  messengers  had  re- 
turned home  they  found  the  slave  con- 
valescent. 

Such  in  context  and  content  is  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  after  application  of  the 
methods  of  the  higher  criticism,  the  pro- 
cesses which  you  may  have  heard  described 


104  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

—  often  with  large  expenditure  of  wit  at 
the  expense  of  a  little  body  of  indefatigable 
scholars  —  as  "cutting  the  Bible  to  pieces." 
I  must  leave  you  to  judge  whether  the  ac- 
cusations are  deserved.  One  thing  is  cer- 
tain. Whatever  external  and  more  or  less 
artificial  unity  of  connection  to  which  we 
have  grown  accustomed  is  broken  up,  no 
thoughtful  person  can  deny  that  unity  of 
thought  and  logical  connection  characterize 
the  discourse  as  thus  conjecturally  restored 
in  far  higher  degree  than  the  Matthaean 
composite,  as  we  must  now  consider  it.  In 
other  words,  the  process  decried  as  a  cut- 
ting to  pieces  is  one  which  tends,  in  all 
that  lies  behind  the  mere  dead  letter,  to 
unity  and  order,  a  process  which  results 
not  in  a  chaotic  mass  of  disjecta  membra, 
but  in  organic  unities  of  logical  sequence 
and  literary  beauty.  Some  accustomed 
portions  of  the  pile  are  gone  indeed.  We 
miss  the  logical  and  literary  excrescences. 
Rut  what  has  become  of  them  ?  Were  they 
"cast  as  rubbish  to  the  void"?     On  the 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount         105 

contrary,  restored  to  their  appropriate  con- 
text, they  have  no  longer  even  the  appear- 
ance of  excrescences  which  was  put  upon 
them  only  by  displacement.  Of  the  value 
of  these  methods  in  the  given  instance 
you  must  judge  by  the  results.  If  both 
analysis  and  synthesis  produce  a  gain  in 
perspicacity  and  order,  if  in  such  salient 
examples  as  the  discourse  on  the  True 
Content  of  Life  or  Earthly  versus  Heav- 
enly Riches,  the  Discourse  on  Prayer, 
and  the  Warning  to  Israel  to  be  Recon- 
ciled ere  too  late  with  her  great  Adversary, 
not  only  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  the 
gainer  by  the  removal,  but  the  section  re- 
moved by  its  new  setting,  then  the  method 
is  justified  both  by  its  logic  and  its  results. 
We  shall  be  warranted  in  seeking  to  apply 
it  further. 

But  the  result  in  the  specific  instance  of 
the  great  discourse  on  the  Higher  Right- 
eousness is  what  now  concerns  us.  Grant 
that  we  have  succeeded  in  establishing  a 
connected  logical  unity  and  in  exhibiting  in 


106         The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

outline  its  principal  substance,  and  it  will 
be  impossible,  I  think,  to  deny  that  our 
first  evangelist  is  right  in  his  apparent 
design  to  depict  Jesus  in  the  attitude  of 
a  second  Moses,  a  title  expressly  given 
him  by  the  primeval  Jewish  church.  Not 
that  Jesus  put  himself  forward  as  such  a 
law-giver,  even  in  the  inner  circle  of  his 
disciples.  Quite  the  contrary.  But  that 
he  was  fully  conscious  that  nothing  would 
fully  meet  their  need,  which  did  not  wholly 
replace  for  them  that  institution  which  in 
the  heart  of  every  true  Jew  was  dominant 
over  every  other  consideration,  religious 
or  secular  —  the  Law,  the  To  rah  divinely 
revealed  to  Moses,  Israel's  charter  as  the 
People  of  God.  To  be  a  People  of  God 
in  very  truth,  and  as  he  would  have  them, 
Jesus  knew  that  the  great  cry  and  expec- 
tation of  his  people  for  a  new  law  must 
be  met.  And  in  form  he  gave  it  to  them. 
In  form  even  the  briefer  utterance  which 
we  take  to  be  the  original  discourse  is  a 
new  Torah.     Jesus  assumed  personally  the 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount         107 

authority  not  indeed  to  enact,  but  to  make 
known  the  absolute  divine  law,  as  it  must 
needs  be  under  the  ideal  conditions  of  the 
kingdom  he  proclaimed.  The  antitheses 
of  old  and  new,  past  and  future  require- 
ment, cannot  be  eliminated,  and  will  bear 
no  other  interpretation.  In  form  the 
very  watchword  of  legalism  is  adopted  — 
"  recompense."  "  Great  is  your  reward  in 
heaven,"  "your  reward  shall  be  great," 
"else  ye  have  no  reward,"  "  He  that  seeth 
in  secret  shall  reward  thee."  It  seems  to 
echo  everywhere  the  Pharisaic  idea,  "  What 
shall  I  do  that  I  may  have  a  claim  on  eter- 
nal life  ?  "  In  form  it  is  as  completely  neo- 
legalistic  as  the  Matthaean  answer  to  this 
question.  In  reality  there  is  just  as  much 
and  just  as  little  of  literalness  in  the  inten- 
tion of  the  answer  as  in  the  reply,  "  Go,  sell 
all  that  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor, 
and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven, 
and  come,  follow  me  to  martyrdom."  The 
expectation  of  the  legalist  is  met  to  the 
ear,  but  broken  to  the  hope.     Jesus'  para- 


108         The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

dox  seems  to  promise  that  a  little  further 
effort  along  the  line  of  the  righteousness 
of  scribe  and  Pharisee  will  gain  the  long 
coveted  reward.  In  reality  the  new  re- 
quirement is  so  exorbitant  that  all  mere 
mercenary  righteousness  collapses  before  it 
and  "  turns  away  sorrowful."  Mere  hope 
of  heavenly  recompenses  cannot  face  such 
requirements  as  forbid  not  only  the  act  of 
hate  or  lust,  but  the  slightest  unkind  word 
or  impure  thought,  and  command  the  turn- 
ing of  the  other  cheek  in  place  of  retalia- 
tion. Even  a  Saul  of  Tarsus  found  the 
struggle  hopeless  when  the  law  demanded, 
"Thou  shalt  not  desire."*  When,  there- 
fore, the  New  Law  culminates  in  the  posi- 
tive requirement  of  unlimited  love  and 
service  even  to  the  unthankful  and  evil, 
because  such  is  the  righteousness  exer- 
cised by  God,  and  promises  on  this  condi- 
tion, "Your   reward    shall   be   great  —  ye 

*  Rom.  7 :  7.  Saul's  Bible  was  Greek,  and  the  Greek 
Owe  itridvfirj(7€LS  conveys  this  sense.  Evil  desire,  i-rridv/xla, 
is  to  Paul  the  essence  of  sin. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount         109 

shall  be  children  of  the  Highest,"  it  is  not 
expected  that  the  Pharisaic  spirit  will  be  at- 
tracted, but  rather  supremely  disappointed. 
In  such  rare  atmosphere  it  can  no  longer 
sustain  itself.  He  who  obeys  the  law  in 
mere  hope  of  reward  must  turn  away  a 
wiser  if  a  sadder  man. 

And  if  in  all  the  succeeding  section  on 
the  God-ward  duties,  almsgiving,  prayer, 
fasting,  the  refrain,  "Thy  Father  shall  re- 
ward thee,"  still  recurs,  such  (to  the  legal- 
ist) vague  assurance  in  place  of  the  detailed 
and  specific  promises  extracted  by  the  rab- 
bis from  Scripture  will  have  seemed  like 
mockery  after  what  precedes. 

What  then  is  the  fundamental  nature 
of  this  discourse,  as  the  closest  critical 
scrutiny  reveals  it  ?  In  a  single  word  it 
is  not  legislative,  as  our  first  evangelist 
seems  to  regard  it,  but  prophetic.  It 
does  not  enact,  but  interprets.  It  does  not 
lay  down  rules,  but  opens  up  principles. 
It  was  indeed  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
historian   of    Jesus'    life   and    teaching   a 


110         The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

disastrous,  almost  incredible  mutilation  to 
leave  out,  as  our  third  evangelist  has 
done,  all  the  negative  side  of  the  teaching, 
and  give  nothing  but  the  commandment 
of  ministering  love  toward  all.  We  can 
scarcely  understand  that  the  five  great 
interpretative  antitheses  of  the  new  law 
of  conduct  toward  men  versus  the  old, 
and  the  three  corresponding  antitheses 
on  duty  toward  God,  could  have  been 
dropped  in  one  form  of  even  the  oral 
tradition ;  still  less  that  an  evangelist, 
anxious  to  "  set  forth  in  order  a  declara- 
tion "  of  the  full  content  of  Christian  tra- 
dition, after  "accurately  tracing  it  up  to 
the  very  first,"  should  have  deliberately 
cancelled  such  invaluable  material.  And 
yet  our  third  evangelist,  by  thus  concen- 
trating upon  the  simple  affirmation  of  the 
law  of  love,  shows  that  in  real  insight 
into  the  Speaker's  purpose  he  surpasses 
the  author  of  the  fuller  report.  Matthew, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  quite  absorbed  in  the 
relation  of  the  new  To  rah  to  the  old.     So 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount         111 

much  so  that  he  fails  to  appreciate  that 
his  material  is  not  really  a  series  of  new 
enactments,  but  in  reality,  just  as  Luke 
perceives,  a  simple  application  to  the  sit- 
uation of  that  one  principle  which  Jesus 
elsewhere  enunciates  more  briefly ;  and 
not  then  as  enacting  something  new,  but 
as  explaining  the  old.  A  certain  scribe 
came  unto  him  with  one  of  the  debated 
questions  of  the  day :  Rabbi,  which  is  the 
great  commandment  of  the  Law  ?  Jesus 
went  further  than  the  great  Hillel  had 
gone  in  the  saying,  "  What  thou  wouldest 
not  that  others  should  do  unto  thee,  do 
not  unto  them  ;  this  is  the  whole  Law, 
the  rest  is  commentary."  Jesus  replied : 
"  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  mind.  This  is  the  first  and 
great  commandment.  And  the  second  is 
like  unto  it,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself.  On  these  two  commandments 
hang  all   the    Law  and   the    Prophets."  * 

*  Mt.  22  :  35-40. 


112         The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

As  our  Johannine  interpreter  has  shown,* 
even  these  two  are  one. 

What  now  is  our  great  discourse  on  the 
new  Torah  but  an  expansion  of  this  one 
"  new  commandment  "  in  its  two  divisions, 
and  application  of  it  to  the  question, 
How  shall  the  Law  be  renewed  in  the 
Kingdom  of  Messiah  ?  The  five  antith- 
eses of  ethics  are  not  so  many  new 
enactments  in  place  of  the  old.  They 
are  not  the  substitution  of  one  new  and 
broader  rule  of  conduct  toward  men,  in 
place  of  many.  They  are  not  rules  at 
all.  They  are  illustrations  of  the  one 
principle  which  Jesus  saw  in  "  all  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets,"  and  saw  as  well 
in  all  nature  and  history,  that  the  divine 
calling  is  to  ministering  love  and  service 
—  that,  and  that  alone.  The  three  an- 
titheses of  religion  are  not  so  many  new 
enactments  in  place  of  the  Mosaic  cere- 
monial.    They  are  not  even  the  substitu- 

*  Jn.  2:5-15;  3:10-18;  4:  16-21;   5:1-3;    Jn.  15: 

9-14,  '7- 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount         113 

tion  of  one  universal  rule  of  worship  in 
spirit  and  in  truth  for  innumerable  forms. 
They  are  not  rules.  They  illustrate,  in 
the  particular  problem,  What  is  the  relation 
of  worship  in  the  kingdom  of  God  to  that 
now  current  ?  —  the  one  principle  that  the 
divine  calling  to  ministering  love  and  ser- 
vice is  a  calling  of  man  into  the  fellowship 
of  his  own  nature,  a  relation  of  sonship 
and  fatherhood. 

This,  then,  is  the  real  and  fundamental 
significance  of  the  great  discourse  on  the 
New  Law  of  Christ.  Taken  as  a  whole 
it  exhibits  the  mystical  sense  of  its  open- 
ing paradox,  "  I  came  not  to  destroy,  but 
to  fulfil."  In  Pauline  language,  "Christ 
is  the  end  of  the  Law  unto  righteousness 
for  every  one  that  believeth  ;  "  because 
all  the  Law  is  fulfilled  in  this  one  word, 
"  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself," 
and  the  new  "  Law  of  Christ,"  that  we 
"bear  one  another's  burdens,"  is  not  a 
law,  but  an  animating  spirit.  Thus  the 
purpose  of  the  Law  is  achieved,  not  indeed 


114         The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

by  its  hopes  of  reward  and  threats  of 
penalty,  but  by  the  gift  of  a  new  divine 
disposition  from  Him  who  alone  is 
"good";  and  being  achieved,  the  Law 
is  done  away. 

In  the  mind  of  the  great  Teacher 
accordingly  the  form  of  a  New  Law  in 
which  he  casts  his  teaching  is  a  form 
only.  The  legalistic  conception  is  as 
foreign  to  it  as  when  Paul  himself  em- 
ploys the  term  "  the  law  of  Christ."  His 
hearers'  minds  are  as  completely  fettered 
by  the  current  legalism  as  that  of  the 
young  ruler,  prototype  of  Saul,  whom  he 
"  looked  upon  and  loved."  And  Jesus 
takes  their  point  of  view.  Not  indeed 
wholly  as  a  matter  of  condescension ;  for, 
as  a  form,  it  is  as  natural  to  him  as  to 
them.  But  his  deeper  religious  sense, 
the  mysticism  of  his  God-consciousness, 
triumphs  over  it.  In  the  very  adoption 
of  this  legal  form  for  his  demand  of 
righteousness,*  he  shows  them  their  need 

*  On  this  point,  see  Beyschlag,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I.  ch.  5,  §  1. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount         115 

of  a  higher,  because  when  they  have  done 
all,  they  will  still  have  no  claim  to  eternal 
life.  The  most  they  can  say  on  the  basis 
of  merit  will  be :  "  We  are  unprofitable 
servants.  We  have  done  that  which  it 
was  our  duty  to  do." 

Long,  indeed,  was  it  before  the  church 
could  apprehend  this  higher  point  of  view. 
Even  the  polemic  anti-legalism  of  Paul 
could  not  lift  the  dead  weight  of  centuries 
of  training  under  the  conception  of  "moral 
government."  We  trace  the  reactionary 
tendency  in  the  additions  of  the  compiler 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  evidenced 
by  the  variant  report  of  Luke  and  by 
inherent  inconsistency  with  the  context, 
in  further  additions  of  scribes  of  mediaeval 
times,  evidenced  by  the  variation  of  man- 
uscripts, finally  in  the  unconscious  addi- 
tions of  modern  interpreters,  all  in  the 
same  direction,  all  assuming  that  after  all 
Jesus,  in  this  case,  was  a  casuist  and  not 
a  preacher  ;  a  legislator,  not  a  herald  of 
the   glad   tidings ;    that    he   taught    rules 


116         Tl)e  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

of  conduct  rather  than  principles  of  reli- 
gion. 

Take  as  examples  of  that  neo-legalistic 
coloration  which  precedes  the  formation 
of  our  first  gospel,  the  scrupulous  qualifi- 
cations attached  in  the  Matthaean  form 
of  the  Beatitudes,  guarding  the  terms  on 
which  the  blessings  may  be  had,  as  though 
the  Speaker  had  been  too  liberal  with  his 
offer  of  the  divine  bounty  for  a  general 
audience  ;  the  clause  in  v.  16,  which  ex- 
plains the  "light"  as  "good  works  ";  above 
all,  the  insertion  of  5  :  18  with  its  insistence 
on  the  minutiae  of  the  letter  of  the  Law  in 
the  midst  of  a  context  which  aims  to  free 
from  the  letter  and  exalt  the  spirit. 

As  examples  of  the  continuation  of  the 
same  process  by  mediaeval  scribes  take 
the  addition  from  Ps.  37:11  to  the  Beati- 
tudes, the  proviso  in  Mt.  5:11  that  the 
evil  speaking  endured  must  be  "  false  "  to 
deserve  reward,  and  the  addition  "  with- 
out a  cause  "  to  the  prohibition  of  anger 
in  5  :  22. 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount         117 

Even  so  noble  and  free  a  spirit  as  Tolstoi 
in  modern  times  cannot  free  himself  from 
the  misconception  of  Jesus  as  a  casuist  in 
his  interpretation  of  the  doctrine  of  non- 
resistance.     But  more  often    literalism    is 
applied  to  the  antithesis  of  goodness  as 
the  cure  for  wrong  rather  than  retaliation, 
sometimes  involving  disparagement  of  the 
great    Teacher,    as   if    he   had    really   at- 
tempted to  sit   in    Moses'   seat,   and   had 
shown  his  unfitness  for  practical    legisla- 
tion.    Yet  an  immense  majority  of  laymen 
and  ecclesiastics,  even  among  Protestants, 
sin   just  as    egregiously  against   the   real 
meaning  of  Jesus,  when  they  attempt  to 
formulate  an  ecclesiastical  law  of  divorce 
on  the  basis  of  Mt.  5  :  32.     It  is  true  that 
they  have  here  the  bad  example  of  the 
evangelist,  who  by  inserting  the  exception 
"  save  on  account  of  fornication  "  here  and 
in  Mt.  19:9  perverts  the  sense,  and  con- 
tradicts every  other  reference  of  the  New 
Testament*;   but  in  spite  of  this  textual 

*  Appendix  B  (4),  p.  1 77. 


118         The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 

corruption  the  whole  spirit  of  the  passage, 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  a  whole,  and 
Jesus'  teaching  on  other  occasions  should 
have  taught  us  that  Jesus  was  not  enact- 
ing a  divorce  law,  but  preaching,  like  the 
prophet  Malachi,  "  The  Lord  hateth  put- 
ting away."  It  is  chosen  to  serve  as  a 
second  illustration  in  the  antithesis  on 
purity  of  thought  versus  action,  because 
of  the  base  motive  which  then  as  now  was 
in  most  cases  directly  or  indirectly  the 
cause  of  "putting  away."  The  word  of 
Jesus  leaves  the  Christian  statesman  abso- 
lutely untrammelled  to  legislate  on  this 
subject  simply  and  solely  for  the  highest 
interests  of  the  family,  the  state,  and  social 
order.  If  he  be  truly  loyal  to  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ  he  will  legislate,  whether 
stringently  or  loosely,  as  he  deems  best 
for  these  interests,  because  they  are  also 
the  interests  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

In  conclusion,  I  can  but  urge  you  to  a 
study  of  the  great  discourse  itself.  Under- 
stand Jesus  by  his  own  words  read  to  the 


The  Sermon  on  the  Mount         1 19 

utmost  in  their  original  setting  and  connec- 
tion. Who  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos, 
who  is  Matthew,  or  Luke,  or  John,  but 
ministers  through  whom  we  believe  ?  Un- 
derstand Jesus  as  a  prophet,  a  preacher,  a 
herald  of  glad  tidings,  and  all  these  first 
to  his  own  times.  And  as  you  come  more 
and  more  fully  to  understand  him  thus, 
more  and  more  fully  will  you  find  him  for 
all  time  and  times,  the  Way,  the  Truth, 
and  the  Life. 


APPENDIX   A 
ANALYTICAL   NOTES 

(i)    The  Historical  Setting 

Mk.  3:  7-12  =  Mt.  12:  15,  16;  4:  24,25  = 
Lk. 6:  17-19 

In  Mark,  our  earliest  gospel,  the  description 
of  the  importunate  multitudes  flocking  to  Jesus 
as  the  result  of  his  spreading  fame  as  a  healer 
introduces  an  important  section  of  the  biography. 
The  preceding  section,  2  :  1-3  : 6,  had  illustrated 
how  Jesus'  independent  ways  brought  him  into 
more  and  more  serious  collision  with  the 
authorities,  culminating  in  the  plot  against  his 
life,  3  :  6.  The  evangelist  returns  now  to  the 
point  reached  at  the  close  of  the  first  chapter, 
where  the  disobedience  of  those  he  healed  to 
his  injunctions  of  silence  had  resulted  in  serious 
injury  to  his  real  work  of  evangelization,  "  so 
that  he  was  no  longer  able  openly  to  enter  a 
city,  but  was  without  in  desert  places,  and  they 
came  to  him  from  every  quarter."  In  3  :  7- 
121 


122  Appendix  A 

6  :  12  the  evangelist  explains  how  Jesus  met  the 
problem  (a)  by  the  selection  and  training  of  a 
group  of  disciples,  3  :  13-35,  (&)  by  l'ie  teaching 
in  parables,  4  :  1-34.  The  series  of  incidents 
in  4  :  35-5  :  43  are  illustrative  of  3  :  14,  15,  how 
Jesus  trained  the  Twelve  to  "  go  forth  and 
preach  "  and  to  "  have  power  over  demons." 
The  episode  of  3  :  iob-35  is  introduced  to  show 
how  Jesus  gave  his  disciples  the  place  of  his 
earthly  kin,  and  is  itself  forced  apart  by  the 
insertion  of  the  story  of  the  unforgivable  blas- 
phemy of  the  scribes  from  Jerusalem,  3  :  22-30, 
by  way  of  contrast  with  the  pardonable  fault 
of  Jesus'  mother  and  brethren.*  The  episode 
of  Jesus'  rejection  in  Nazareth,  6  :  1-6,  stands 
where  it  does  as  a  kind  of  colophon  to  the  story 
of  Jesus'  personal  preaching.  "  His  own  re- 
ceived him  not." 

*  But  a  totally  independent  version  of  this  saying  and 
its  occasion  (My  mother  and  brethren  are  "  they  that 
hear  the  word  of  God  and  keep  it ")  is  given  in  Lk. 
1 1 :  27-28  which  coincides  with  Mark's  in  the  repre- 
sentation that  it  was  uttered  on  the  day  of  the  great 
collision  with  "  the  scribes  from  Jerusalem"  (vv.  15-22). 
This  would  indicate  actual  historical  coincidence  and 
not  merely  collocation  for  didactic  purposes. 


Appendix  A  123 

The  general  description,  Mk.  3:7-12,  thus 
constitutes  the  introduction  to  that  whole  sec- 
tion of  the  gospel  which  ends  with  the  Mission 
of  the  Twelve,  6  :  7-12.  It  is  natural  therefore 
that  the  evangelist  should  anticipate  here  some 
of  the  illustrative  special  traits  he  subsequently 
relates  in  their  specific  connection.  Striking 
examples  of  such  prolepsis  appear  (a)  in  v.  9, 
where  the  utilization  of  the  boat  as  an  ex- 
temporized pulpit  is  anticipated  from  4:1, 
(6)  in  v.  10,  where  the  endeavor  of  those 
who  had  "  scourges  "  (/taortyas,  as  in  5  :  29,  34) 
to  touch  him  is  anticipated  from  5:27,  and 
(c)  in  v.  n,  which  generalizes  the  specific 
instances  subsequently  related  in  5:6.  These 
instances  clearly  establish  the  character  and 
purpose  of  Mk.  3  :  7-12,  at  the  same  time  justify- 
ing the  primeval  tradition  as  to  the  order  of 
Mark  generally  as  representing  rather  the  exi- 
gencies of  didactic  method  (tt^os  tt)v  xPc^av)  than 
chronological  order  (ov  /xcVtoi  tc££«).* 


*  Modern  criticism  is  so  much  impressed  with  the 
relatively  original  and  historical  order  of  Mark,  as 
compared  with  our  other  gospels,  as  to  pay  altogether 
too  little  attention  to  this  real  characteristic. 


124  Appendix  A 

No  good  critic  who  reads  side  by  side  Mk. 
3:7-12  and  Lk.  6:17-19  will  deny  the  de- 
pendence of  Luke,  so  that  demonstration  would 
here  be  a  waste  of  words. 

The  matter  is  somewhat  different  in  Matthew, 
because  in  this  gospel  two  parts  are  made  of 
the  description.  Mk.  3:7,  10%  12  are  utilized 
in  Mt.  12  :  15-21  to  introduce  in  w.  22-50  that 
which  next  follows  in  Mark,  the  blasphemy  of 
the  scribes  from  Jerusalem  vs.  the  opposition 
of  Jesus'  mother  and  brethren.  The  appoint- 
ment and  list  of  the  Twelve  (Mk.  3  :  13-19) 
drops  out  because  already  given  from  the  Logia 
source  (Mt.  10  :  1-4).  The  rest  (Mk.  3  :  8,  10, 
11),  omitting  the  proleptic  special  features,  is 
utilized  in  Mt.  4  :  24,  25  for  the  same  purpose 
as  in  Luke.  This  coincidence,  as  Wendt  * 
remarks,  may  be  accounted  for  on  the  sup- 
position that  in  the  Logia  a  similar  situation 
was  given  for  the  discourse,!  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  both  evangelists,  in  spite  of  their 
representation  of  Jesus  as  surrounded  by  vast 
multitudes,  begin  by  saying  that  he  addressed 

*  Lehre  Jesu,  Vol.  I.  p.  53. 
f  See,  however,  p.  65. 


Appendix  A  125 

his  "  disciples."  And  such  would  seem  to  be  the 
nature  of  the  discourse  itself,  though  by  paBijrai 
it  certainly  meant  more  than  the  Twelve  alone. 

(2)   The  Beatitudes 

Mt.  5:1-12  =  Lk.  6 :  20-24,  and  Woes,  Lk.  6 :  24-26 

On  the  question  whether  Luke  or  Matthew, 
as  between  the  two  widely  discrepant  represen- 
tations of  the  introductory  portion  of  the  address, 
represents  greater  originality,  the  judgment  of 
Holtzmann  *  and  Wendt  f  is  certainly  correct. 
As  Wendt  has  shown,  the  supposed  Ebionism  of 
the  Lucan  source  is  not  present.  Not  the  con- 
ditions of  admission  to  the  kingdom  of  God  are 
laid  down,  else  even  Matthew,  with  all  its  en- 
deavor to  remove  their  apparently  unethical 
character,  will  still  have  left  in  5  :  4  and  1 1  traits 
obnoxious  to  moral  feeling,  but  its  subjects  are 
congratulated  on  the  superiority  of  its  blessings 
to  those  of  this  world.  The  contrast  is  between 
external  and  spiritual  good,  and  is  exactly  in 
line  with  the  antitheses  of  the  new  and  old,  ex- 
ternal vs.  spiritual  morality,  which  Luke  never- 
theless   does    not    contain.       It    is    still    more 

*  Synopt.  Evang.y  p.  76  f.  f  Op.  fit.,  p.  53. 


126  Appendix  A 

distinctly  in  line  with  the  contrast  of  worship  : 
the  Pharisee,  who  worships  to  be  seen  of  men, 
and  "  has  his  reward,"  and  the  son  of  the  King- 
dom whose  reward  is  from  "  thy  Father  that 
seeth  in  secret."  In  the  lecture  attention  is 
called  to  the  identity  even  in  phraseology. 

It  is  not  here  Matthew  but  Luke  who  writes 
6  :  23,  "  Rejoice  for  great  is  your  reward  in 
heaven  ; "  24,  "  Woe  to  you  rich,  for  ye  have 
received  to  the  full  {a.TrixiT€)  your  consolation  ;  " 
35,  "  And  your  reward  shall  be  great." 

The  contrasting  "  woes "  are  also  certainly 
original,  not  merely  because  of  the  thought  and 
phraseology,  as  already  suggested,  but  because 
the  balance  of  the  discourse  in  all  its  other  parts 
between  old  and  new,  outward  and  inward,  ma- 
terial and  spiritual,  requires  it. 

Thirdly,  Luke  is  correct  in  employing  the 
second  person,  to  which  even  Matthew  passes 
over  in  11  and  12.  It  does  not  follow  because 
no  rich  men  were  presumably  present,  that  Jesus 
did  not  apostrophize  them,  as  in  Lk.  6  :  24  ;  for 
in  Lk.  10:13;  J3  :  34>  35  we  have  similar 
instances,  and  in  Jas.  5:1-6  a  still  closer  par- 
allel.    The  change  to  the  third  person  is  part  of 


Appendix  A  127 

a  process  of  generalization  of  the  teaching  in 
Matthew  of  which  we  have  now  to  speak. 

The  secondary  character  of  the  Matthsean 
form  is  apparent  (a)  in  the  numerical  arrange- 
ment apparent  throughout  this  gospel ;  *  (t>)  in 
the  addition  of  explanatory  clauses  ;  (c)  in  the 
toning  down  of  strong  rhetorical  figures  toward 
the  commonplaces  of  catechetic  instruction. 

Under  (a)  we  notice  here  that  we  have  just 
seven  beatitudes,  corresponding  to  the  seven 
(originally  five)  clauses  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the 
seven  parables  of  ch.  13,  and  the  seven  woes  of 
ch.  23  ;  for  v.  5,  whose  position  varies  in  the 
/?  text,  is  a  mere  scribal  gloss,  a  marginal  addi- 
tion from  Ps.  37:11,  which  has  crept  in  after 
v.  3  in  some  manuscripts,  after  v.  4.  in  others. 
This  threefold  recurrence  of  groups  of  seven  is, 
therefore,  doubtless  the  work  of  the  compiler 
(Matthew'1'),  especially  as  he  makes  up  in 
chapters  8-9  a  similar  group  of  ten  miracles. 

(&)  The  addition  of  the  clauses  to  TrvevfxaTi 

(V.      3),      KOLL      Suj/WVTCS      TT)V      $LKCU.O<TVVr]V      (v.      6), 

\f/evS6fi€voL  (v.  n),  tovs  TTpb  i'fjLwv  (v.  12)  tends 

*  See  Hawkins,  Horce  Synoptictr,  p.  132,  and  Holtz- 
mann,  Handkommentar,  p.  II.     But  cf.  infra,  p.  169. 


128  Appendix  A 

to  adjust  the  meaning  to  the  common  view  or 
to  remove  difficulties.  We  cannot  suppose  that 
though  original,  they  were  omitted  by  Luke. 
Their  editorial  insertion  by  Matthew  is  perfectly 
comprehensible. 

(c)  The  general  result  of  the  changes  from 
second  to  third  person,  introduction  of  new 
beatitudes  (w.  7,  9,  10)  commending  all  sorts 
of  virtues,  explanatory  additions  to  guard  against 
a  non-ethical  interpretation,  tends  to  generalize 
the  teaching  adapting  the  discourse  to  service  as 
a  compendium  of  rules  of  right  living.  This 
effaces  the  strong  lines  of  the  original  thought, 
as  determined  by  the  constant  contrasts  which 
follow.  It  is  characteristic  of  this  evangelist 
(Matthew1")  that  he  is  considerate  of  ortho- 
doxy, conforming  inexact  quotations  to  the  letter 
of  scripture  (Mt.  13:14-15,  cf.  Mk.  4:12; 
19:18-19,  cf.  Mk.  10:19),  and  changing 
Mark's  plain  fiam'kf.ia  tov  6e.ov  to  the  more  rev- 
erent (?)  circumlocution  fiaatXcia  tW  ovpavwv. 
While  it  is  no  unreasonable  supposition  of  O. 
Holtzmann's  that  Jesus  in  this  respect  may  have 
followed  the  usage  of  his  countrymen  (cf.  Lk. 
15  :  21),  Matthew '"'s  practice  in  the  sections  he 


Appendix  A  129 

borrows  from  Mark  makes  it  reasonable  to  regard 
/Sao-tXeta  to>v  ovpavwv  as  secondary  everywhere. 

The  result  is  for  us  an  unavoidable  adoption 
of  the  Lucan  form  (three  beatitudes  and  an 
explanatory  expansion,  vv.  22-23,  followed  by 
three  woes  in  antithetic  form)  as  the  more 
original.  The  exordium  thus  appears  to  be 
expressive  of  the  single  thought :  True  blessed- 
ness is  not  with  the  outwardly  enviable,  but  the 
inwardly,  however  wretched  in  men's  eyes.  As 
usual,  in  such  cases,  the  nearer  we  come  to  the 
original  the  greater  is  the  simplicity  and  self- 
consistency  of  the  thought.  It  answers  the 
question,  Wherein  lies  the  blessedness  of  the 
kingdom  ?  not,  What  must  be  done  to  attain  it? 

The  general  superiority  of  the  Lucan  form 
does  not,  of  course,  exclude  occasional  Matthaean 
superiority  in  detail,  as  where  Luke  also  inserts 
in  v.  21  twice,  and  in  v.  25  twice  (/?  text  once) 
an   explanatory  vvv  ;    in  v.  22  the  clauses  brav 

(j.icrr)(Tw<nv  v/xas  Kal  acpopicrwcnv  vp.a<;  and  ei'tKfv  i/xov 
in  V.  23,  iv  Uuvr)  Trj  7/xe'pa,  and  yap  and  01  Trarepes 
auroiy  both  here  and  in  v.  26  (a  text). 

For  the  discussion  of  these  and  similar  details 
see  Appendix  B. 

K 


130  Appendix  A 

(3)    The  Two  Preliminary  Parables 

Mt.  5:  13-16  =  Mk.  9:50";  4:21  =Lk.  14:34-35; 
8:16=  11:33 

The  two  parables  setting  forth  (here)  the 
importance  to  the  world  of  the  disciples'  faith- 
fulness, are  introduced  by  Matthew  at  this 
point  because  of  the  beatitudes  (taken  as  de- 
scriptive of  the  true  disciple).  The  admission 
of  the  woes  of  course  destroys  this  connection, 
which  was  in  reality  fictitious,  since  the  mean- 
ing assigned  by  Matthew  to  both  beatitudes  and 
parables,  a  meaning  on  which  the  connection 
depends,  is  inexact.  The  context  of  the  dis- 
course itself  accordingly  excludes  them,  and  as 
Mark  and  Luke  both  give  them  elsewhere 
(Luke  gives  the  second  in  two  places),  it  is 
certain  that  they  are  really  stray  logia  attached 
by  Matthew",  or  Matthew ili. 

Of  the  parable  of  the  Salt  become  Tasteless 
(such  is  its  real  significance)  in  the  Markan 
setting  we  must  say  the  same.  Its  only  con- 
nection with  Mk.  9  :  49,  5ob  is  the  bare  word 
"  salt,"  which  is  used  in  quite  a  different  meta- 
phor both  before  and  after.  Mk.  9  :  49  would 
seem  to  be  a  stray  logion  on  the  seasoning  effect 


Appendix  A  131 

of  persecution  (cf.  2  Tim.  2  :  1,  3).  In  5ob  salt 
is  a  metaphor  for  pungent  criticism.  Use  your 
powers  of  criticism  on  your  own  selves  (em- 
phatic ZavToh)  j  toward  one  another  keep 
peace  (cf.  Rom.  14:13).  Luke's  setting,  as 
Wendt  has  seen,*  is  correct.  The  parable  is  a 
warning  against  weariness  in  well-doing  drawn 
from  the  experience  of  Palestinian  housekeepers, 
whose  salt,  having  a  large  admixture  of  im- 
purities in  the  shape  of  white,  insoluble  "  salts," 
when  exposed  to  dampness  disappeared,  leaving 
the  tasteless  and  worthless  residuum.  The  sense 
is  parallel  to  Mk.  4:17.  While  Luke's  literary 
setting  is  correct,  the  historical  connection  is 
doubtless  approximately  Mark's  ;  for  both  forms 
of  the  story  in  this  gospel  connect  with  Jesus' 
prediction  of  his  fate  in  Jerusalem  a  warning  to 
his  disciples  of  the  need  to  renounce  all  for  the 
kingdom.     Mk.  8  :  31-33,  34-9  :  i=Mk.  9  :  30- 

32>  43-5°- 

Wendt  also  regards  the  reading  ko.\6v  ovv  to 

aAa9  as  derived  from  Mk.  9  :  50,  preferring  the 

Matthaean  form  v/xas  e<rre  to  a\as  tt/s  y^s.     It 

would  be  well  in  that  case  to  follow  Wendt's 

*  Op.  cit.,  p.  125.     See  below,  Appendix  C. 


132  Appendix  A 

own  principle  of  the  pairing  of  parables,  and 
follow  Matthew  to  the  further  extent  of  adding 
at  least  5  :  14*  and  16  v/acis  tore  to  <f>u><:  rot) 
Ko&fJiov,  ovrcos  Xa/x^/aTU)  kt\. 

For  the  saying  on  hiding  the  lamp  (or  the 
city  on  a  hill)  we  have  a  choice  of  two  other 
connections,  that  of  Mk.  4:21,  followed  by 
Luke  in  8  :  16,  and  that  of  Lk.  n  :  33.  The 
latter  is  clearly  incorrect ;  for  the  illustration  of 
the  proper  use  of  truth,  to  which  the  saying  is 
clearly  adapted,  has  none  but  a  superficial  and 
mnemonic  connection  with  the  warning  to  fol- 
low the  inward  light  as  against  pretentious 
human  authorities,  Lk.  11:34-36.  Mark's 
setting,  however,  is  not  necessarily  correct  be- 
cause Matthew's  and  Luke's  are  incorrect.  In 
fact  the  logion  in  Mark  is  appended  along  with 
4:22  in  a  connection  which  is  certainly  not 
original.  Mk.  4  :  10-25  as  a  whole  constitutes 
an  interruption  to  the  context  of  4  :  1-9,  26-34, 
in  which  vv.  n-12  area  first  interpolation*  (the 
agraphon  (xvaT-qpiov  ifxbv  ifxol  koli  tois  vtots  tov 
oUov  fxov,  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  v.  10:69,  an(^ 
Clem.  Horn.  xix.  20,  taken  together  with  Is.  6  :  9 
*  See  s.v.  Gospels,  Encycl.  Bibl.,  p.  1 866. 


Appendix  A  133 

as  employed  in  Rom.  n  :  8).  The  interpolator 
takes  rjpuTwv  ras  7rapa/5oAas  (properly  to  be 
understood  from  v.  34)  as  if=8ia  rt  iv  napa- 
(3o\ai<;  XaXeis  aureus  (Mt.  13  :  10).  This  inter- 
polated "  hard  saying "  on  the  "  hiding  of 
Jesus'  teaching  "  in  the  parables  has  then  prob- 
ably led  to  the  attachment  of  the  other  logia  in 
21-25  by  way  of  antidote.  The  most  we  can 
say  for  the  original  setting  of  that  on  hiding  the 
lamp  (city)  is  that  it  would  seem  to  have  been 
an  exhortation  to  the  disciples  to  court  rather 
than  fear  publicity,  perhaps  that  in  which  the 
associated  logion  Mk.  4:22  appears  in  Mt.  10  : 
26  f. 

(4)    The  Higher  Righteousness 

Mt.  5  :  17-20  =  Lk.  16:  17  + 

The  originality  of  5  :  17,  20  needs  no  further 
defence.  The  question  regarding  this  section 
of  the  Matthaean  discourse  concerns  the  two 
logia  of  vv.  18-19,  the  former  of  which  appears 
also  in  Lk.  16  :  17.  It  here  purports  to  explain 
(yap)  the  TrXrjpuo-ai  of  v.  1 7.  If  correctly,  the 
most  that  can  be  said  against  the  connection  is 
to  declare  w.  18-19  superfluous;  if  incorrectly, 


134  Appendix  A 

we  must  seek  a  better  connection  for  the  logion, 
if  not  for  its  companion,  v.  19,  as  well. 

Most  critics  regard  these  two  sayings  on  the 
permanency  of  the  law,  and  the  relative  value  of 
destructive  and  constructive  reformation,  as  in- 
terpolated. The  fact  that  Luke  gives  the  former 
elsewhere  is  inconclusive,  because  Luke  omits 
for  his  own  reasons  the  whole  section,  though 
showing  acquaintance  with  it.  In  fact  his  very 
next  logion  (i6:i8  =  Mt.  5:32),  which  he 
makes  to  follow  directly  upon  this,  is  certainly 
part  of  the  omitted  material,  and  the  Lucan 
connection  of  both  logia  is  most  artificial 
(Lk.  16:16,  "The  law  and  the  prophets  were 
until  John  ").  We  must  decide,  therefore,  on 
internal  evidence. 

The  language  of  Mt.  5  :  18  (ye'v^rai),  even  if 
we  allow  no  weight  at  all  on  this  point  to  the 
Lucan  form  (-rreo-eiv),  certainly  suggests  that  the 
"  fulfilment "  meant  by  the  evangelist  who  ap- 
pends the  saying  to  TrXrjpCxrai  is  not  that  of 
renovation  by  broader  and  deeper  interpreta- 
tion, but  in  action,  by  obedience  ;  and  we  are 
reminded  that  in  8  :  2-4  Matthew ii[  makes  the 
incident   he    takes   from    Mk.    1  :  40-45    follow 


Appendix  A  135 

immediately  after  the  Sermon,  in  spite  of  the 
absurdity  then  involved  in  the  injunction  of 
secrecy  (cf.  Mt.  8  :  i,  and  4°),  apparently  to 
illustrate  how  obediently  Jesus  "  fulfilled  "  the 
law.*  But  the  antitheses  which  follow  show 
that  such  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  irXripCxrai 
of  v.  1 7,  but  rather  "  fulfilment  "  in  exposition  by 
enlargement  of  the  content.  Moreover,  it  surely 
was  not  Jesus'  design  to  declare  that  the  time 
would  come  when  every  minutest  prescription 
of  the  Torah  would  be  implicitly  obeyed.  It 
is,  however,  a  frequent  assurance  of  Jesus  to  his 
followers  that  the  things  concerning  himself  in 
Moses  and  the  prophets  ("  the  law "  in  the 
broader  sense  of  Scripture)  should  have  their 
fulfilment.  If  reduced  to  conjecture  for  the 
original  connection  of  this  legion,  we  shall  do 
far  better,  therefore,  to  take  it  in  this  sense 
of  "  coming  to   pass,"  connecting  it  with  the 

*  Compare  the  characteristic  addition  Mt.  3:  15,  "It 
becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  In  other  words, 
the  baptism  of  repentance  is  indeed  meaningless  in  my 
case  and  the  relation  of  baptizer  to  baptized  inappro- 
priate, but  as  an  act  of  righteousness,  an  p/>us  operation, 
we  should  go  through  it.  An  impossible  sentiment  in 
the  mouth  of  Jesus;  cf.  Mk.  2:  19. 


136  Appendix  A 

eschatological  discourse,  or  perhaps  regarding 
it  as  simply  a  different  version  of  Mk.  13:31. 
The  essential  nature  of  the  figure  is  identical 
with  Jer.  31  :  35-37,  and  it  would  seem  probable 
that  Jesus  employed  it  similarly.  We  might 
even  conjecture  that  in  the  original  utterance 
the  form  was  not  "  my  word,"  but,  as  in  the 
O.  T.  passages  generally,  "  the  word  of  the 
Lord."  In  either  case  the  thing  absolutely 
assured  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  "  sure  mercies 
of  David,"  and  the  establishment  of  the  "new 
covenant." 

In  5  :  19  it  is  not  apparent  that  we  have 
anything  out  of  harmony  with  the  remaining 
context.  That  the  principle  is  authentic  is 
demonstrable  from  the  certainly  historical 
agraphon  on  the  man  working  on  the  Sabbath 
(Lk.  6:5/8  text),  and  from  Rom.  14:13-23, 
not  to  speak  of  the  many  instances  in  which 
Jesus  showed  how  one  might  "  do  and  teach 
the  law "  even  while  practising  the  larger 
righteousness  {e.g.  Lk.  11  :4i).  It  is  true  that 
the  verse  would  not  be  missed  if  removed  from 
between  17  and  20;  but  if  a  genuine  Xoyiov  its 
position  here  is  at  least  admissible  on  the  in- 


Appendix  A  137 

terpretation  of  Beyschlag.*  The  contrast  of 
Kcn-aAvo-cu  and  TrXrjpwo-ai  in  v.  17  would  receive 
thus  an  explanation  in  real  harmony  with  the 
antitheses  which  follow.  To  "relax"  (Xvtrat, 
cf.  KaTakvval,  v.  17)  would  be  to  show  by  ex- 
ample and  teaching  that  a  commandment  is 
obsolete ;  to  "  fulfil "  would  be  to  show  by 
example  and  teaching  how  to  truly  venerate  the 
past.  Both  are  needful  services,  but  one  is 
"  least,"  the  other  "  great." 

Holtzmann'sf  objections,  fatal  as  they  are 
to  v.  18,  scarcely  affect  v.  19,  and  a  separa- 
tion seems  really  to  be  required  by  the  differ- 
ence in  sense  of  yivrjrai  ("come  to  pass")  and 
iroirjar)  ("  perform  ").  The  most  serious  would 
be  the  argument  that  v.  19  militates  against 
that  very  distinction  of  greater  and  lesser  ele- 
ments of  the  Law  emphasized  elsewhere  in 
the    discourse,    e.g.    w.    23-24.       But    is    it 

*  "  Among  these  least  commandments  there  is  no  mere 
empty,  vain  husk  without  a  kernel  to  be  thrown  away. 
In  each  there  is  a  divine  thought,  an  imperishable  idea, 
which  must  come  to  its  rights  before  the  letter  be  allowed 
to  perish."     New  Test.  Theol.,  I,  p.  no. 

f  New  Test.  Theol.,  I,  p.  152. 


138  Appendix  A 

really  the  fact  that  the  expression  "  one  of 
these  least  commandments "  is  opposed  to  the 
distinction  ? 

On  the  clause  ^  tovs  ■npo^-qra.%,  v.  17,  see 
Appendix  B  (2). 

(5)  First  Antithesis,  Murder  vs.  the  Spirit  of 

Hatred 

Mt.  5  :  21-26  =  Lk.  12 :  57-59 

The  impropriety  of  the  connection  of  the 
warning  to  impenitent  Israel  to  be  reconciled 
ere  too  late  with  its  divine  adversary,  whose 
impending  judgment  is  to  be  read  in  the  signs 
of  the  times,  Mt.  5  :  25-26  =  Lk.  12:57-59, 
with  that  on  the  superiority  of  reconciliation 
(with  a  brother)  to  sacrifice,  and  with  the 
antitheses  of  the  new  righteousness  generally, 
is  so  manifest  to  every  reader  of  the  Lucan 
context,  that  we  need  only  refer  to  Appendix  C, 
vii,  p.  247,  so  far  as  these  verses  are  concerned. 
But  is  the  preceding  logion,  5  :  23-24,  on  recon- 
ciliation with  a  brother,  rightly  placed? 

We  have  indeed  no  parallel  report  on  author- 
ity of  which  we  might  assign  it  a  different  con- 
nection, but  the  connection  with  the  illustrative 


Appendix  A  139 

antithesis  is  certainly  of  the  loosest,  whereas 
the  symmetry  of  structure  of  the  whole  dis- 
course forbids  the  supposition  of  such  digres- 
sions. Jesus  was  giving  illustrations  of  the 
higher  righteousness  of  the  kingdom,  as  against 
scribal  casuistic  ethics.  Did  he  digress  to  illus- 
trate the  remotely  connected  principle  of  the 
greater  importance  of  humanity  than  ceremo- 
nial? It  is  far  more  probable  that  the  connec- 
tion is  owing  to  the  evangelist,  whose  frequent 
additions  we  have  already  had  occasion  to  note. 
From  what  context  it  may  ultimately  have  been 
derived  is  a  more  difficult  question.  We  should 
naturally  think  of  Mt.  22  :  40  (cf.  Mk.  12  :  33)  \ 
or  perhaps  better  of  Mt.  18  :  5-6,  10-14,  as  the 
preceding  context.  If  our  logion  were  there 
inserted,  18  :  15  ff.  would  follow  appropriately.* 
On  the  emended  form  of  5  :  22,  conforming 
to  that  of  the  second  antithesis  (vv.  27-28, 
31-32),  see  Appendix  B,  and  Journ.  of  Bib. 
Lit.,  1892,  i,  p.  131,  "  Note  on  Mt.  5  :  21-22," 
by  John  P.  Peters. 

♦The  rule  of  discipline,  Mt  18:16-17,  cannot,  in 
present  form,  be  genuine;  but  the  underlying  principle, 
Win  thy  brother  (v.  15),  may. 


140  Appendix  A 

(6)  Second  Antithesis,  Adultery  vs.  Impure 
Thought 

Mt.  5  :  27-32  =  Mt.    18:6,  8-9  =  Mk.  9  :  42-49  =  Lk. 
17:2  +  Mt.  19:  9  =  Mk.  10:  io-ii  =  Lk.  16:  18 

Wendt,*  although  recognizing  the  necessity 
of  removing  from  the  Matthaean  context  of  v.  39 
the  logion  on  the  hand  that  causes  stumbling, 
as  having  no  real  relation  to  the  antithesis  of 
purity  of  thought,  vs.  purity  of  action  only, 
thinks  it  needful  to  retain  the  logion  (v.  29) 
on  the  eye  that  causes  stumbling,  on  the  ground 
that  "  Jesus  adduces  examples  in  most  of  the 
other  portions  of  this  section,  of  how  his  com- 
mands surpass  the  earlier."  But  we  have 
already  had  occasion  to  remove  vv.  23-24  to 
which  reference  appears  to  be  made,  so  that 
this  argument  is  inverted.  Moreover,  the  at- 
tempt to  divide  the  saying  on  sacrificing  that 
which  is  most  precious  if  it  become  an  obstacle 
to  salvation  into  two  utterances  on  separate 
occasions  is  like  attributing  to  different  poems 
the  two  halves  of  any  familiar  stanza. 

One  must  then  not  only  consider  the  strophe 
and  antistrophe  of  Mt.  5  :  29  and  30  to  be  the 
*  Op.  cit.,  p.  59. 


Appendix  A  141 

work  of  the  evangelist,  or  of  some  predecessor 
in  the  field ;  but  must  also  consider  that  the 
association  of  the  two  in  Mk.  9  :  43-48  is  the 
result  of  a  second  independent  attempt  to  com- 
bine in  poetic  form  these  same  two  independent 
logia.  And  over  and  above  this  we  have  the 
testimony  of  Matthew  himself  in  18  :  6-9,  where 
he  copies  Mk.  9  :  42-47,  to  this  more  original 
form,  wherein  three  members,  hand,  foot,  and 
eye,  were  used  as  examples. 

Accordingly,  we  have  here  to  do  with  an  inde- 
pendent logion,  somewhat  abridged  in  Mt.  18  : 
8-9  from  the  highly  rhetorical  form  of  Mark, 
with  threefold  strophe  and  thrice  recurrent 
refrain  fiX-qOrjvai  cis  yUwav,  and  still  further 
abridged  in  Mt.  5  :  29-30.  The  examples  of 
similar  twofold  or  threefold  strophic  utterance 
elsewhere  in  Jesus'  teaching  (Mt.  6  :  1-18  ;  n  : 
7-10,  20-24)  strongly  support  the  originality  of 
the  Markan  form.  But  if  so  we  shall  be  com- 
pelled to  distinguish  between  Matthew"',  who 
has  incorporated  Mk.  9  :  42-47  in  Mt.  18  :  6-9, 
and  Matthew",  who  inserts   it  in   5  :   29-30.* 

*  See  my  Introd.  to  N.  T.  Lit.,  p.  202,  and  Soltau, 
Eine  L'ucke  der  Synoptischen  Forsclutng,  1900. 


142  Appendix  A 

For  (a)  while  it  is  not  at  all  inconceivable  that 
the  duplication  should  escape  notice  if  the  logion 
had  already  been  incorporated  by  an  earlier  hand 
in  a  large  section,  such  as  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  it  is  less  probable  that  the  same  editor 
would  deliberately  insert  it  twice,  not  without 
considerable  change  of  form.  Accordingly,  the 
incorporation  of  5  :  29-30  into  its  present  con- 
text will  have  preceded  the  taking  up  of  the 
discourse  as  a  whole,  and  of  Mk.  9  :  33-50  into 
our  Matthew.  Moreover,  (b)  Matthew'',  in  5  : 
29-30,  shows  decided  appreciation  of  strophic 
form,  and  while  he  destroys  the  threefold 
strophe  of  Mark,  is  able  to  produce  a  twofold 
strophe  of  artistic  type.  But  Matthew"',  as  we 
have  seen,  makes  havoc  of  this  artistic  structure 
by  his  additions,  and  can  hardly  have  had 
appreciation  for  rhetorical  form. 

But  is  it  possible  to  form  a  reasonable  con- 
jecture as  to  the  original  connection  of  the 
logion  ? 

Certainly  not  from  the  preceding  context  of 
Mark.  Here  9 :  43-48  is  appended  to  the 
warning  against  "  stumbling "  (aKavSaXt^eiv)  a 
"  little  one,"  simply  because  of  the  mnemonic 


Appendix  A  143 

word  o-Kav&iAt£«v.  Inner  connection  there  is 
none  whatever.  Moreover,  the  warning  against 
stumbling  the  "little  ones  that  believe,"  by 
which,  as  we  may  easily  see  from  the  form  of 
the  logion  in  Clem.  Rom.  xlvi,  8  (Oval  to>  av- 
6p<*>Trii)  Ifceuw)  •  KaXov  rjv  avTw  d  ovk  eyevvrjOr)  77  Ira 
Tuiv  €kXcktu)v  fiov  crKavSaAicrai  ktX.),  are  not 
meant  children,  but  those  weak  in  the  faith,  is 
attached  by  the  merest  mnemonic  relation  to 
the  saying,  Mk.  9:  37,  41,  about  "receiving  a 
little  chiW1  Mk.  9  :  33-50  is  thus  seen  to  be, 
for  the  most  part,  a  mere  agglomeration  of  stray 
logia ;  for  we  have  seen  above  how  purely  fic- 
titious is  the  connection  of  the  sayings  about 
salt  and  fire,  9  :  49-50. 

If,  then,  we  dissolve  the  fictitious  connection 
between  the  logion  on  Causing  the  Weak  to 
Stumble,  and  that  on  Stopping  at  no  Sacrifice 
for  Salvation,  we  have  for  the  former  the  evidence 
of  both  Matthew  and  Luke  that  it  came  from  the 
connection  of  the  teaching  concerning  Duty 
toward  those  "  who  are  of  the  Household  of  the 
Faith"  (10-14,  15,  21-35),  which  is  given  very 
briefly  indeed  in  Lk.  1 7  :  1-4,  but  forms  the  basis 
of  the   entire  chapter  Mt.   18,   though  certain 


144  Appendix  A 

intrusive  elements  here  are  derived  from  Mark, 
as  we  have  seen  in  the  case  of  vv.  8-9,  and  cer- 
tain others,  as  vv.  16-20,  from  other  sources.* 

But  where  place  the  logion  on  stopping  at  no 
sacrifice  for  salvation.  Here  Luke  deserts  us 
entirely,  having  absolutely  no  trace  of  the  saying, 
though  several  closely  related  warnings  (e.g.  13  : 
22-25)  '}  and  Matthew,  as  we  have  seen,  vacil- 
lated between  two  contexts,  neither  of  which  can 
be  right.  We  have  one  resort  left,  the  succeed- 
ing context  in  Mark.  It  is  true  that  v.  4ob  is 
shown  by  the  earlier  texts  to  be  a  mere  gloss, 
and  even  49s  has  much  the  same  character  of  an 
addendum  to  v.  48  suggested  by  the  recurrence 
of  the  word  irvp.  But,  however  it  may  be  with 
these  four  words,  7ras  yap  irvpl  akiaO-qcrtTaL,  50% 

*  For  brevity's  sake  we  are  compelled  to  omit  from 
Appendix  C  this  discourse  on  Duty  to  Members  of  the 
Household  of  Faith,  which  Reville  has  perceived  to  be 
one  of  the  seven  principal  discourses  of  our  first  gospel, 
(i.)  the  New  Law,  5:  3-7:  27;  (ii.)  Apostolic  Instruc- 
tions, 9:  37-38;  10:  5-16,  33-42;  (iii.)  Foes,  11 :  7-19, 
21-30;  12:  24-25,  28,  30,  37-39;  (iv.)  Parables  of  the 
Kingdom,  13:  1-52;  (v.)  Relationships  within  the  King- 
dom, 18:  2-7,  10-23;  2°:  I— 16;  21:  23-27;  22:  1-6, 
8-14;  (vi.)  Woes,  23;  (vii.)  Eschatology,  24:  11-12, 
26-28,37-51;   25. 


Appendix  A  145 

as  we  have  seen,  is  a  warning  against  faint-heart- 
edness  supported  by  reference  to  the  destruction 
of  worthless  material.  In  Lk.  14  :  34  it  follows 
upon  the  two  parables  on  counting  the  cost, 
which  end,  "So,  therefore,  whosoever  he  be 
that  renounceth  not  all  that  he  hath,  he  cannot 
be  my  disciple."  Luke  has  employed  this  con- 
text of  14  :  25-35  to  forestall  a  misuse  of  the 
parable  of  the  great  supper,  14  :  15-24,  and  we 
cannot  say  what  originally  came  before  it ;  very 
possibly  the  answer  "  Strive  to  enter  in,"  to  the 
question,  "Lord,  are  there  few  that  be  saved?" 
Lk.  13  :  22-30.  But  enough  that  Mark's  con- 
nection of  the  warning,  Stop  at  no  Sacrifice,  with 
that  of  the  Tasteless  Salt  is  vindicated.  We 
have  in  Lk.  14  :  25-35  a  reasonable  context, 
even  if  we  do  not  add  Lk.  13  :  22-30.  Both 
belong  to  the  period  when  Jesus'  followers,  hav- 
ing forsaken  all  (Mk.  10:  28),  are  on  their  way 
to  the  great  crisis  in  Jerusalem. 

On  the  readings  of  Mt.  5  :  32  (  =  Mk.  10: 
io-i2  =  Mt.  19:  Q  =  Lk.  16;  iS)  and  of  the 
succeeding  antitheses  of  duty  toward  man, 
Mt.  5:33-48,  7:i2  =  Lk.  6:27-36+,  see 
Appendix  B  (4),  (5),  and  (6). 


146  Appendix  A 

(7)    The  Three  Antitheses  of  Duty  toward  God 
Mt.  6:  i-l8  =  Mk.  II :  25,  Lk.  11 :  1-4 

Further  argument  is  needless  to  show  that  the 
true  occasion  for  the  Lord's  Prayer  is  that  given 
by  Luke,  and  although  no  parallel  to  Mt.  6  :  7-8 
appears,  no  one  is  at  a  loss  to  understand  the 
omission  by  our  Gentile  evangelist.  Accord- 
ingly, since  the  symmetry  of  the  antitheses  is  no 
less  strongly  opposed  to  their  presence  in  the 
Matthaean  connection,  than  the  integrity  of  the 
thought,  which  forbids  digressions  into  general 
instruction  on  how  to  pray  acceptably,  we  ex- 
clude the  whole  passage,  w.  7-15,  assigning 
7  (8  duplicates  6  :  32  and  is  redactional),  9-13 
(in  the  simpler  fivefold  Lucan  form)*  to  the 
Lucan  discourse  on  Prayer,  f 

But  Lk.  18 :  1-8,  although  placed  by  our 
evangelist  at  the  end  of  an  eschatological  section 
17  :  20-37,  because,  as  he  rightly  perceives,  the 
widow  who  importunately  calls  for  justice  is  the 
widowed  'daughter  of  Zion '  (cf.  v.  7)  has  its 
own  explanatory  introduction  (v.  1)  which 
clearly  and,  as  would  seem,  correctly  stated  its 

*  See  Lecture,  p.  79.     t  See  Appendix  C,  I,  p.  183. 


Appendix  A  147 

didactic  intent ;  and  this  connects  the  parable 
by  closer  ties  with  Lk.  n  :  1-13.  Its  subject  is 
identical :  Persistence  in  Prayer.  The  mere 
fact  that  its  illustration  is  in  line  with  17  :  20-37 
is  not  enough  to  justify  divorce  from  the  dis- 
course on  Prayer.  As  to  date  the  most  that 
can  be  said  is  that  the  occasion  of  the  discourse 
seems  to  be  later  than  the  choice  of  the  Twelve, 
Mk.  3:7-12,  perhaps  later  than  the  death  of 
the  Baptist ;  but  earlier  than  the  crisis  in  Gali- 
lee, Mk.  7  :  1-24,  after  which  general  religious 
teaching  was  less  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples 
than  the  special  problems  of  the  immediate  sit- 
uation. 

But  the  saying  on  forgiveness,  14-15,  has 
only  a  fortuitous  relation  to  the  teachings  on 
prayer.  To  classify  it  with  these  is  as  if  one 
should  place  the  saying  on  Reconciliation  being 
better  than  Sacrifice,  Mt.  5  :  24,  in  the  category 
of  teachings  regarding  true  sacrifice.  In  fact 
the  two  just  named  are  companion  utterances, 
as  will  be  seen  as  soon  as  we  bring  Mt.  6  :  14-15 
into  its  true  connection  among  the  teachings  on 
Duty  to  those  who  are  of  the  Household  of  the 
Faith,  Reconciliation  and  Forgiveness,  in  Mt.  18. 


448  Appendix  A 

For  the  connection  in  Mark  is  a  typical  ex- 
ample of  mere  mnemonic  association,  so  com- 
mon in  the  occasional  logia  of  our  second 
gospel,  as  if  sayings  attached  on  the  margin  had 
become  incorporated.*  In  fact  the  Markan 
connection  (/cat  orav  arr]KVTt  irpocrev^o/xtvoi) 
strongly  suggests  derivation  from  Matthew "  or 
Matthew1".  In  Mt.  18,  the  logion  6  :  14-15 
will  have  formed  the  conclusion  of  the  parable 
on  forgiveness,  18  :  21-35. 

(8)    Earthly  against  Heavenly  Wealth 

Mt.  6:i9-34  =  Lk.  12:13-34;    11:34-35;    16:1-9,  «- 
13.  19-25 
Additional  argument  to  prove  the  correctness 
of  Luke's  setting,  as  against  Matthew's,  for  this 

*The  whole  of  Mk.  11  :  20-25  *s  made  UP  of  such 
debris.  The  logion  22-24  comes  from  the  connection 
Mt.  17:  19-20  where  its  sense  is  as  true  to  the  princi- 
ples of  Jesus  as  in  that  of  Mk.  II  :  20-21  it  would  be 
false.  So  of  25  where  forgiveness  is  not  inculcated  as  a 
means  of  getting  our  prayers  answered.  Verses  20-21 
form  simply  an  editorial  link  to  connect  with  II  :  12-14, 
which  the  evangelist  fails  to  understand  as  symbolic 
action  of  the  prophetic  type,  and  thus  assumes  to  re- 
quire an  actual  and  visible  effect.  The  incident  of  the 
fig  tree  is  complete  in  11:12-14";  cf.  Mt.  21:18-22 
(N.B.  irapaxpTjlJ-ay 


Appendix  A  149 

great  discourse  as  a  whole  will  be  needless  for 
those  who  admit  the  principles  of  criticism  and 
wasted  on  those  who  do  not.  For  the  discourse 
as  a  whole,  in  its  larger  Lucan  connection,  we 
refer  the  reader  to  Appendix  C,  II,  p.  186. 

But  the  two  logia  on  Single-mindedness  (?) 
and  Serving  two  Masters,  Mt.  6  :  22-24,  do  not 
occur  in  the  discourse  on  Earthly  vs.  Heavenly 
Wealth,  Lk.  12  :  13-34,  but  elsewhere  in  Luke, 
the  former  in  connection  with  Jesus'  defence 
against  the  blasphemy  of  the  scribes  from 
Jerusalem,  Lk.  n  :  14-36,  the  latter  in  con- 
nection with  an  independent  discourse  on  wealth 
and  what  it  can  and  cannot  do,  in  Lk.  16. 
Apart  from  the  inappropriateness  of  the  whole 
teaching  in  a  discourse  on  the  New  Righteous- 
ness, we  have  two  reasons  for  thinking  the  set- 
ting of  Luke  correct,  at  least  for  Mt.  6  :  22-23. 
(a)  It  is  difficult  to  discover  in  it  any  relation 
to  the  context  (earthly  vs.  heavenly  riches) 
unless  taken  as  contrasting  with  v.  24,  in  the 
sense  :  Make  the  heavenly  wealth  the  undi- 
vided object  of  your  pursuit.  Do  not  divide 
your  service  between  it  and  Mammon.  In 
Matthew's  conception  the  "  single  eye,"  there- 


150  Appendix  A 

fore,  is  that  of  the  servant  of  Ps.  123  :  2,  un- 
swervingly fixed  on  the  master  from  whom  the 
reward  is  to  come.  But  while  such  a  con- 
ception may  very  well  have  led  to  the  insertion 
of  both  logia  here,  it  certainly  fails  to  do  justice 
to  the  saying  on  the  "lamp  of  the  body,"  if 
indeed  the  general  teaching,  Make  the  heavenly 
reward  your  undivided  object,  be  not  on  general 
principles  too  meretricious  to  accord  with  the 
unselfish  teachings  of  Jesus  (cf.  Mk.  8  :  35,  and 
parallels).  In  this  interpretation  everything 
turns  on  the  word  dirXovs,  as  against  the  8val 
Kvpiois  of  v.  24,  "  single  "  vs.  "  double  "  service. 
But  if  Matthew's  were  the  original  meaning,  the 
contrasting  adjective  in  the  negative  half  of  the 
logion,  v.  23,  describing  the  eye  as  it  must  not 
be,  should  not  be  irovrjpos.  Double  sight  may 
not  be  a  correct  antithesis  on  account  of  the 
"  doubleness  "  of  normal  sight,  but  we  should  at 
least  expect  some  such  epithet  as  "wandering" 
or  "  inconstant."  The  use  of  rcovr\p6^  by  both 
authorities  indicates  that  the  "simplicity" 
meant  is  not  singleness  vs.  duality,  but  singleness 
in  the  sense  of  honesty ;  integrity  vs.  duplicity. 
Moreover,  the  condition  of  inward  light  or  dark- 


Appendix  A  151 

ness  is  not  what  we  should  expect  where  the 
object  sought  is  not  clearness  of  vision,  but 
heavenly  reward.  It  is  in  the  Lucan  connection, 
Blind  Leaders  vs.  the  Inward  Guidance,  that  it 
becomes  appropriate  to  say :  Inward  light  is 
given  to  those  who  preserve  integrity  of  mind. 
The  true  sense  of  the  saying,  accordingly,  is 
that  which  it  has  in  the  context  of  Lk.    n  : 

29-32>  34~36- 
We  have  indeed  a  difficult  problem  in  the 

disentanglement  from  the  two  accounts  of  Mat- 
thew (Mt.  9  :  32-34  ;  12  :  22-45,  and  16  '•  1-12), 
two  of  Mark  (Mk.  3  :  22-30;  8  :  11-21,  and 
7  :  1-23),  one  of  Luke  (Lk.  n  :  14-54; 
12  :  1,  10),  and  two  of  John  (Jn.  6  :  30  ff.  con- 
nected with  9  :  40  ff.)  of  the  great  philippic  of 
Jesus  in  Capernaum  against  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees.  But  of  one  thing  we  may  be  fairly 
certain,  the  saying  on  the  lamp  of  the  body  vs. 
the  inward  light,  was  uttered,  as  we  learn  from 
Lk.  n  :  29-32,  34-36,  in  rebuke  of  the  "evil 
and  adulterous  "  demand  for  a  sign  from  heaven, 
and  the  "  simplicity "  of  eye  on  which  inward 
illumination  is  conditioned,  is  not  that  of  the 
servant  intent  on  his  reward,  but  of  him  who 


152  Appendix  A 

seeks  the  right  path  for  himself  or  others.  It  is 
the  simplicity  of  the  childlike  and  teachable 
spirit,  because  of  which  Jesus  could  thank  the 
Father  that  though  hidden  from  the  wise  and 
prudent,  his  gospel  was  revealed  unto  babes.  It 
is  integrity  of  mind,  as  opposed  to  the  duplicity 
of  the  "hypocritical"  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
who,  because  they  deemed  their  own  religious 
leadership  to  be  threatened  by  the  new  prophet, 
had  covertly  (Mt.  12:25)  given  currency  to 
their  blasphemous  verdict,  "He  casteth  out 
devils  by  Beelzebub,"  then  queried  why  Jesus 
and  the  Twelve  kept  not  "  the  tradition  of  the 
elders,"  and  finally  opposed  Jesus'  preaching  of 
warning  against  impending  judgment  with  the 
demand  of  "  a  sign  from  heaven." 

For  (6)  that  the  "evil  eye"  which  is  darkened, 
is  that  of  the  "blind  Pharisee,"  and  blinder 
scribe  who  assumes  to  "lead  the  blind,"  not  that 
of  him  who  merely  is  divided  in  his  service,  is 
also  suggested  by  Mark's  narrative  of  this  mo- 
mentous encounter  (Mk.  7:  1-23),  where,  after 
explaining  wherein  real  defilement  consists,  we 
have  enumerated  among  the  faults  of  those  who 
outwardly   are   clean,   but   inwardly  full   of  all 


Appendix  A  153 

uncleanness,  the  "  evil  eye  "  and  "  blasphemy  " 
that  had  just  been  shown  by  "  the  scribes  who 
came  down  from  Jerusalem." 

If  thus  we  are  driven  to  separate  Mt.  6:22- 
23  from  v.  24,  placing  the  former  with  Luke  in 
the  Denunciation  at  Capernaum,  we  may  per- 
haps effect  compensation  as  regards  v.  24.  The 
saying  on  Simplicity  of  Heart,  taken  in  the 
sense  of  Singleness  of  Service,  has  clearly  been 
drawn  in  to  the  discourse  on  the  Rewards  of 
Heaven  by  that  on  Divided  Service,  Mt.  6  :  24 
=  Lk.  16  :  13.  How  then  came  the  logion  on 
serving  God  and  Mammon  to  be  inserted  here? 
Manifestly  not  because  of  the  mere  Sval  Kuptois, 
since  it  was  not  here.  But  bring  the  saying 
into  relation  with  its  larger  connection  of  Lk. 
16  :  1-13,  14-15,  19-25,  and  it  becomes  intel- 
ligible. It  is  true  the  connection  of  the  logia  in 
Lk.  16  :  10-13  appears  somewhat  broken,  v.  10 
introducing  possibly  a  foreign  element.* 

Yet  there  is  at  least  no  incompatibility  be- 
tween v.  13  and  1-9,  n-12  ;  for  the  warning  of 
the  parable,  "Use  fleeting  wealth  as  a  means  to 

*  Perhaps  the  original  refrain  answering  to  Lk.  19:17 
=  Mt.  25  :  23,  which  will  have  stood  in  place  of  19 :  27. 


154  Appendix  A 

higher  ends  while  it  is  in  your  hands,"  is  not 
remote  from  the  teaching,  "  Beware  lest  you 
allow  it  to  become  an  end  in  itself  in  rivalry 
with  God." 

But  here  appears  an  affinity  between  the  logion 
on  divided  service  and  the  discourse  on  heavenly 
wealth  which  quite  disappears  in  the  Matthaean 
form.  The  wealth  ((mfifuHv)  of  unrighteousness, 
belonging  as  it  does  to  the  Prince  of  this  world 
(Lk.  4:6),"  faileth  "  (eicXwrei,  Lk.  16  :  9).  The 
specified  characteristic  of  the  heavenly  treasure 
is  that  it  does  710 1  fail  (Mt.  6  :  19-20). 

How  then  comes  Matthew'"  to  insert  into 
the  discourse  on  the  "  Treasure  in  heaven  that 
faileth  not,"  a  verse  which  in  the  larger  connec- 
tion of  Lk.  16  :  1— 13  we  find  attached  to  a  par- 
able on  the  use  of  "  the  mammon  that  belongs 
to  unrighteousness,"  which  though  it  "  fails"  can 
be  made  a  means  to  "  eternal  habitations " 
(cuwvtovs  crKT/vas)  ;  and  yet  himself  quite  over- 
look this  relation  and  substitute  a  fictitious  one? 
Must  it  not  be  that  v.  24  (save  for  what  belongs 
to  it  in  Lk.  16:1-9  (10-12?))  is,  after  all, 
substantially  in  right  relation  to  Mt.  6:19-21? 
Will    it    not    have    been    because    Matthew"' 


Appendix  A  155 

found  the  verse  {plus  somewhat  more  too  di- 
verse from  his  theme  of  the  heavenly  reward  to 
be  utilized)  in  this  connection,  that  he  placed 
it  here,  inserting  before  it  6  :  22-23  t0  f°rm  ^e 
contrast  Single  vs.  Divided  Service  ?  But  if  so, 
then  in  Luke  also  there  has  been  to  some  extent 
a  separation  of  connected  material  by  the  inser- 
tion of  other  less  directly  related.  For  the  great 
discourse  on  the  abiding  heavenly  wealth  in  Lk. 
12  :  13-34,  part  of  which  is  adopted  in  Mt. 
6  :  19-34,  is  separated  from  that  on  How  to  use 
the  fleeting  Wealth  of  the  World,  Lk.  16  :  1-13, 
by  miscellaneous  material  extending  from  1 2  :  35 
to  the  end  of  chapter  15.  The  parable  of  the 
rich  man  and  Lazarus,  to  which  some  hand  has 
appended  a  totally  foreign  addition  *  in  vv.  26- 
31,  is  a  warning  against  judgment  by  outward 
appearance,  and  therefore  cannot  tolerate  the 
intervention  of  the  three  stray  logia,  w.  16-18, 
two  of  which  we  have  already  located  elsewhere, 
between  it  and  v.  15,  which  it  serves  to  illustrate. 
The  originality  of  the  editorial  connection,  v.  14, 

*  See  my  article,  "The  Transfiguration  Story,"  in 
Am.Journ.  of  Theol,  April,  1902;  and  Julicher,  Gleich- 
nissreden,  ad  loc. 


156  Appendix  A 

has  indeed  been  doubted  on  the  ground  that 
avarice  was  not  a  characteristic  sin  of  the  Phari- 
sees. But  the  genuineness  of  $ika.p^/vpoi  iirdp- 
Xovtcs  may  be  questioned  without  rejecting  the 
whole  verse.  Therefore,  until  more  decisive  evi- 
dence appears  against  our  evangelist's  historical 
settings  than  we  have  yet  found,  we  must  regard 
14-15,  19-25  as  a  unit,  the  conclusion  of  the 
great  discourse  on  Earthly  vs.  Heavenly  Wealth, 
Lk.  12  :  13-34,  16  :  1-9,  11-13. 

(9)    How  the  New  Standard  of  Righteousness 
should  be  applied 

(1)  To  self,  not  others,  Mt.  7  :  1-27  +  =  Lk.  6:  37-49  + 

The  Application  of  the  great  discourse  on  the 
Higher  Righteousness  falls  naturally  into  three 
divisions.  (1)  It  is  a  standard  for  self-correc- 
tion, not  for  censoriousness  ;  *     (2)  the  refor- 

*  In  this  connection  it  is  worth  while  to  note  the 
concluding  instructions  of  Paul  to  the  rrvev/jLariKoi  (lead- 
ers of  the  church)  in  (ialatia.  They  are  to  restore  the 
erring  in  a  spirit  of  meekness  looking  to  themselves  lest 
they  also  be  tempted.  It  is  somewhat  significant  that 
this  echo  of  the  concluding  section  of  the  Discourse  on 
the  New  Law  should  be  inculcated  by  Paul  as  a"  ful- 
filling of  the  law  of  Christ,"  Gal.  6:  1-4. 


Appendix  A  157 

mation  must  be  from  the  root,  not  superficial ; 
(3)  deeds  not  words  will  tell. 

Of  these  Luke  preserves  only  (2)  and  (3)  in- 
tact. He  employs  (1)  as  he  employs  elements 
from  the  antithesis  on  Retaliation  (Lk.  6  :  29,  30, 
34,  35  =  Mt.  5  :  40-42)  to  fill  out  the  reduced 
dimensions  of  that  statement  of  the  Higher 
Righteousness  in  exclusively  affirmative  form, 
6  :  27-38,  which  he  substitutes  for  the  antithe- 
ses as  a  whole.  Such  at  least  would  seem  to  be 
the  more  probable  explanation  of  the  connec- 
tion of  37-38*  with  the  preceding  verses.  For 
while  they  appear  to  offer  a  motive  for  the  dis- 
interested goodness  inculcated,  namely,  "  kind- 
ness will  breed  kindness,"  the  very  suggestion  of 
such  a  motive  is  more  or  less  incongruous  with 
the  commendation  of  purely  disinterested  good- 
ness. At  least  the  level  of  the  sublime  saying, 
vv.  35-36,  wherein  true  goodness  is  commended 
as  the  imitation  of  Him  who  gives  without  the 
possibility  of  return,  is  hardly  maintained  if  we 
add,  "  For  men  will  do  as  much  again  for  you," 
Lk.  6:37,  38%  must  therefore  be  derived  from 
another  context,  possibly  that  of  Mt.  18,  for  the 
duty  inculcated  in  v.  37  is  forgiveness. 


158  Appendix  A 

Again  the  two  logia,  Lk.  6  :  39-40,  have  cer- 
tainly a  fictitious  connection.  As  the  paragraph 
stands  the  sense  must  be,  "  Beware  of  assuming 
to  guide  when  not  yourself  enlightened ;  the 
result  will  be  that  the  pupil  becomes  as  his 
teacher."  To  this  then  is  subjoined  the  saying 
on  removing  a  splinter  from  a  brother's  eye. 
But  it  can  hardly  be  admitted  that  Jesus  should 
have  applied  to  any  disciple  of  his  own,  however 
overhasty  to  assume  the  functions  of  a  teacher, 
the  epithet  of  "  blind  guide  "  which  he  applied 
in  withering  denunciation  to  the  scribes.  More- 
over, we  cannot  be  mistaken  as  to  the  sense  of 
Mt.  7  :  3-5  =  Lk.  6  :  41-42.  Both  witnesses 
agree  in  placing  it  here,  and  the  logion  itself 
clearly  shows  that  it  is  not  so  much  a  warning 
against  assuming  to  teach  without  adequate 
preparation,  as  a  warning  against  assuming  to 
judge.  We  must,  therefore,  follow  Matthew  in 
excluding  these  logia,  Lk.  6  :  37bc,  38%  39,  40. 
We  have,  indeed,  no  parallel  elsewhere  to  37bc, 
38%  though  kindred  teachings  are  not  wanting 
(cf.  Mt.  18  :  23-35  ;  Lk.  7  :  36-50  ;  Jn.  7:55- 
8:11  —  originally  "  Lucan"),  so  that  at  best  we 
can  give  it  but  a  very  loose  connection.     But 


Appendix  A  159 

6  :  39  is  a  parallel  to  Mt.  15  :  14,  and  6  :  40  to 
Mt.  10:24-25.  In  both  cases  the  Matthsean 
setting  is  preferable  and  is  supported  by  the 
testimony  of  John  (6  :  39  =  Jn.  9  :  40-41  ;  6  :  40 
=  Jn.  13:16;  15:20).  The  two  verses  are 
not  quite  in  harmony  with  the  context,  which  is 
not  a  warning  against  ambition  to  be  teachers, 
but  against  the  fault-finding  spirit.  Thus  in  Luke 
the  sayings  have  the  appearance  of  logia  attached 
from  floating  tradition.*  In  Mt.  15  :  14  and 
10  :  24-25  they  give  their  true  sense. 

Per  contra,  Matthew's  insertion  of  7  : 6  can 
be  accounted  for  only  by  the  evangelist's  desire 
to  warn  against  misdirected  zeal  in  applying 
gospel  truth,  but  is  too  remote  from  the  real 
subject  to  be  authentic  in  the  connection.  If 
genuine,  as  we  have  no  need  to  doubt,  it  formed, 
perhaps,  a  fragment,  orally  preserved,  of  the 
directions  to  the  Twelve  when  sent  to  preach  the 
kingdom,  Mt.  10:  14-15.  The  rhetorical  form 
is,  of  course,  a  chiasmus,  "  lest  they  (the  swine) 
tread  them  (the  pearls)  under  foot,  and  they 
(the  dogs)  turn  and  rend  you."     It  is  safer  to 

*  Cf.  Wendt,  op.  cit.,  p.  65,  and  Weiss,  Matthausev., 
p.  206. 


160  Appendix  A 

follow  the  actual  precedent  of  Mt.  15  :  26  (  = 
Mk.  7:27;  cf.  15:5)  than  to  reason  on  a  priori 
grounds  that  "  Jesus  cannot  have  been  unwilling 
his  gospel  should  be  preached  to  any  class,"  and 
connect  the  saying  (so  O.  Holtzmann)  with  Mt. 
16:20.  The  connection  of  the  second  sending 
of  the  Twelve,  Mt.  10  :  16-42,  however,  seems 
more  probable  than  that  of  Mt.  10  :  1-15.  The 
dogs  and  swine  will  then  be,  not  heathen  gen- 
erally, but  persecutors. 

Why  the  greater  part  of  the  discourse  on 
Prayer,  Lk.  n  :  1-13,  not  already  taken  up  in 
Mt.  6:9-13,  should  be  inserted  next  by 
Matthew  iU  in  7  :  7-1 1,  is  hard  to  say.  Connec- 
tion of  thought  is  undiscoverable.  Perhaps  the 
need  of  finding  room  somewhere  for  such  indis- 
pensable teaching,  and  the  general  character  the 
discourse  assumes  in  our  evangelist's  mind,  was 
reason  enough  for  throwing  it  in  here.  Defence 
of  the  Lucan  connection  is  superfluous.* 

So  also  with  7:12  which  Luke  gives  correctly 
both  as  to  place  and  form.  Verse  1 2b  is  an  addi- 
tion (cf.  Lk.  6:31)  from  Mt.  22  :  40,  no  doubt 
from  the  hand  which,  by  means  of  a  similar  addi- 
*  See  Appendix  C,  I. 


Appendix  A  161 

tion  in  5  :  1 7,  changes  the  sense  to  a  more  gen- 
eral adaptation  of  the  discourse.  The  summary 
is  in  place,  as  Wendt  has  seen,  after  the  fourth 
ethical  antithesis,  just  before  the  comprehensive 
fifth. 

( i o )  Radical  Reformation 

Mt.  7  :  13-20  =  Lk.  6 :  43-45  i  *3-  24-27  + 
A  more  difficult  problem  confronts  us  in  para- 
graph ( 2 ).  According  to  Wendt  the  leitmotif  of 
the  sections  (1)  Mt.  6  :  1-6,  16-18,  (2)  7  :  1-5, 
(3)  i5-I9> is  "the  hypocritical  zeal  for  righteous- 
ness" of  which  one  form  is  (1)  outward  show  in 
acts  of  piety  ;  another  (2)  censoriousness  toward 
others  with  blindness  to  one's  own  faults ;  a  third 
(3)  our  present  paragraph,  ambition  to  be 
teachers.  Accordingly,  his  explanation  of  the 
employment  of  the  logion,  7  :  13-14  =  Lk.  13  : 
24,  as  an  introduction  to  the  paragraph  15-20, 
is  as  follows  :  Matthew  m,  intending  to  avail  him- 
self of  part  of  the  logion  in  7  :  22-23  =  Lk.  13  : 
26-27,  and  wishing  to  preserve  the  rest,  em- 
ployed it  in  this  place  for  lack  of  a  better.  It 
is,  indeed,  well-nigh  as  hard  to  see  a  real  con- 
nection of  thought  between  the  logion  and  its 
context  here,  as  easy  to  see  it  in  its  Lucan  con- 

M 


162  Appendix  A 

text  (Lk.  13:22-30).  Now  the  figure  of  the 
two  gates  and  two  ways  is  a  common  one  in 
antiquity,  both  Jewish  and  classic*  In  answer 
to  the  question  (Lk.  13  :  23),  "Lord,  are  there 
few  that  be  saved?  "  it  comes  in  appropriately  in 
connection  with  the  sayings  (here  rigidly  con- 
densed;  cf.  Mt.  24:37-25:46  and  8:11)  on 
exclusion  of  those  who,  in  their  own  estimation, 
are  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  kingdom.  The 
Lucan  setting  is,  therefore,  correct.  But  it  is 
hard  to  see  why  even  such  a  compiler  as  Matthew 
should  give  it  room  in  a  warning  against  "  ambi- 
tion to  teach."  If,  however,  the  paragraph  is 
really  on  Radical  Reformation,  the  saying  has  a 
sufficient  degree  of  appropriateness  here  to 
account  for  its  insertion. 

Now  in  the  Lucan  version  of  the  discourse 
(Lk.  6:43-45)  there  can  be  no  question  that 
radical  reformation  is  in  fact  the  sense.  Prophets 
or  teachers  are  not  mentioned.  The  two  kinds 
of  trees  are  compared  respectively  to  the  good 
and  bad  man,  each  of  whom  manifests  in  deed 
(and  word  ?)  his  real  nature.    Only  the  appended 

*  Test,  of  Abraham,  and  Johannes  ben  Zakkai  (Bet: 
28b);   also  in  the  Tablet  of  Kebes. 


Appendix  A  I63 

clause  45b,  «*  yap  7re/3io-<rev/xaTos  KapStas  AaAei  to 
o-To/xa  atrroS  suggests  anything  like  the  Matthaean 
sense,  and  this  does  not  appear  in  Matthew's 
version.  In  fact,  it  has  much  the  appearance  of 
a  scribal  addition  from  Mt.  1 2  :  34.  But  Mt. 
12:33-35  forms  a  doublet  to  7:16-18,  this 
time  taking  the  form  of  Lk.  6  :  43-45,  so  that 
here  Matthew  witnesses  against  himself.  What 
then  is  the  solution  of  the  puzzle  ?  The  intrinsic 
sense  of  the  logia  themselves  (for  there  are  two, 
one  on  judging  pretended  teachers  by  their 
fruits,  7  :  15-17,  20,  the  other  on  reforming  men 
in  their  nature  to  secure  right  action,  Lk.  6  :  43, 
45)  will  give  us  the  key.  The  saying  on  the 
good  tree  vs.  the  rotten  has  really  quite  a  differ- 
ent bearing  from  that  on  plucking  grapes  from 
thorns  and  figs  from  thistles.  The  first  teaches 
the  indispensableness  of  a  sound  nature,  the 
second  applies  a  common-sense  rule  to  the  dis- 
crimination of  the  worthy  from  the  unworthy 
leader.  Now  it  is  only  the  former  which  has 
proper  relation  to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  so 
that  both  45b  and  v.  44  (=  Mt.  7:16)  are  alien 
to  this  context.  But  how  have  they  found  their 
way  hither,  since  in  Luke  the  context  has  no 


164  Appendix  A 

reference  to  the  detection  of  false  leaders? 
Only  the  confusion  of  Mt.  7  :  15-20  with  Mt. 
12:33-35  can  explain  it.  Mt.  7:15,  16,  20 
and  12  :  34  belong  elsewhere.*  Jesus  undoubt- 
edly warned  his  disciples  against  the  wolves  in 
sheep's  clothing,  and  gave  them  this  principle  of 
discrimination,  "Men  gather  not  grapes  from 
thorns  nor  figs  from  thistles ;  "  but  not  at  this 
time.  The  place  of  this  saying  is  more  probably 
among  the  warnings  for  the  future  of  the  church, 
given  when  Jesus  was  preparing  the  Twelve  for 
his  impending  fate.  We  are  reminded  of  Mt. 
24  :  1 1-12  ;  but  the  teachers  here  spoken  of  are 
not  the  special  "  false  prophets  "  of  eschatology, 
but  the  "  grievous  wolves  "  of  Acts  20  :  29. |  A 
better  connection  is  the  section  on  teachers  in 
the  church,  Mt.  23  :  1-12.  It  is  the  mention  of 
tree  and  fruit  which  belongs  between  the  para- 
graph on  Self-judging  and  on  Deeds  not  Words. 
Matthew  may  have  considered  that  the  judgment 
which  in  self-defence  we  are  compelled  to  exer- 
cise upon  those  who  assume  to  direct  us,  formed 

*  See  Appendix  C,  p.  256. 

t  See,  however,   Resch,  Agrapha,   Par.    1 10   and   cf. 
Aidaxv  J6:  3. 


Appendix  A  165 

an  appropriate  exception  to  follow  after  the 
warning,  "Judge  not";  and  combined  the  two 
sayings  on  fruit-bearing  as  the  test  of  char- 
acter. But  this  combination  was  antecedent  to 
Matthew '",  (a)  because  the  connection  is  with 
7  : 1-5  and  is  interrupted  by  vv.  6-14  ;  and  (b) 
because  it  has  affected  Lk.  6  :  43-45,  and  Luke 
shows  no  acquaintance  with  Matthew '".  Mt. 
7  :  17  is,  therefore,  in  the  nature  of  an  editorial 
link. 

Finally,  as  between  the  Lucan  and  Matthsean 
setting  for  Lk.  6  :  43,  45  =  Mt.  12  :  33,  35,  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  Luke's  is  correct,  for  Mt.  7:18 
cannot  stand  alone,  but  requires  this  teach- 
ing to  follow  it.  On  the  other  hand,  Jesus  as- 
suredly did  not  address  the  disciples  on  whom 
he  had  just  pronounced  the  blessings  of  the 
kingdom  as  a  "  generation  of  vipers,"  yewrjfxaTa 
e^iSvoif .  Mt.  1 2  :  34,  if  not  simply  compounded 
of  Mt.  3  :  7  and  the  proverb  eV  TrepLo-aevixaTos 
KapSias  XaXet  to  arofxa,  belongs  in  the  Denunci- 
ation of  Scribes  and  Pharisees  (Mt.  12  :  22-45 
and  parallels),  and  is  responsible  for  the  dis- 
placement of  w.  33  and  35.  In  compensation 
Matthew1'1  appends  in   7:19-20  a  doublet  of 


166  Appendix  A 

3  :  10,  and  a  repetition  of  v.  i6a.  In  this  para- 
graph, accordingly,  it  is  substantially  the  Lucan 
form  which  we  must  follow,  omitting  44  and  45b. 

(11)   Deeds  not  Words 

Mt.  7:  21-27  =  Lk.  6:  46-49,  13  :  26,  27 

Wendt's  observation  that  Mt.  7  :  22-23  ^as 
been  borrowed  from  the  Lucan  context  is  cer- 
tainly correct.  Warnings  against  exclusion  in 
the  day  of  judgment  are  in  place  in  that  escha- 
tological  section  of  Luke,  to  which  we  have 
already  assigned  the  counsel  to  seek  timely 
reconciliation  with  the  great  Plaintiff;  they 
have  slight  relation  to  a  context  on  proper  use 
of  the  new  standard  of  righteousness.  But  over 
and  above  this  it  is  inconceivable  that  Jesus  at 
this  period  of  his  ministry,  before  his  Messianic 
claims  had  been  broached,  should  have  openly 
referred  to  himself  as  judge  at  the  final  assize. 
Accordingly  we  must  recognize  that  while  the 
substance  of  Mt.  7:21  remains,  on  the  testi- 
mony of  Lk.  6  :  46,  and  because  the  proposition 
in  illustration  of  which  the  parable,  vv.  24-27 
(=  Lk.  6:47-49),  is  uttered  requires  to  be 
stated,  its  form  has  been  altered  to  agree  with 


Appendix  A  167 

the  eschatological  logion  which  follows  in  v.  22 
(ipoixnv  .  .  .  Kvpu,  Kvpit ;  cf.  Mt.  25  :  11,  37, 
44).  Mt.  12  :  50  suggests  the  form  of  the  last 
half  of  the  verse.  The  Lucan  form,  6  :  46, 
agrees  with  the  succeeding  context  (dxoiW  .  .  . 
teal  7roiu)v),  and  must  accordingly  represent  the 
original.* 

(12)    The  Colophon  and  Succeeding  Events 

Mt.  7:  28-29;  8  :  1-13  =  Lk.  7:1;  5  :  12-16;   7:  2-10 

A  comparison  of  the  concluding  remark  by 
which  each  evangelist  Matthew  and  Luke  de- 
scribes the  effect  of  the  great  discourse,  is  of  sin- 
gular value  as  evidence  of  the  history  of  its 
transmission  during  the  formative  period  of 
our  gospels. 

The  formula  /cat  eye'vcro  otc  IrkXtatv  6  'I^crovs 
kt\.  is  employed  five  times  in  Matthew,  each 
time  as  the  conclusion  of  one  of  the  great 
masses  of  discourse  material  which  distinguishes 
this  gospel  (7:28;  11  :i;  13:53;  19:1; 
26:1).  Sir  John  Hawkins  f  has  given  excel- 
lent reasons  for  regarding  it,  however,  as  a 
phrase  coined  not  by  Matthew ni,  but  by  an  earlier 
*  See  Appendix  B.        f  Hora  Synaptics,  p.  132. 


168  Appendix  A 

compiler.*  The  first  is  that  "  Lk.  7  :  1  cVeiS?) 
iTrXtjpwaev  iravra  to.  prjfjuara  avrov  is  SO  closely 
parallel  in  substance,  though  not  in  words,  to 
Mt.  7  :  28  as  to  suggest  a  common  origin  for 
them  both."  We  have  just  seen  that  there 
are  phenomena  of  the  text  which  are  unac- 
countable without  a  connection  between  Luke 
and  Matthew". 

We  may  add  to  this  another  conclusion.  It 
was  the  work  already  of  this  Matthew  "  to  com- 
bine the  five  Pereqs,  as  Sir  John  felicitously  calls 
them,  with  a  narrative,  and  this  narrative  at  least 
partly  drawn  from  our  Mark.  For  (1)  the  for- 
mula itself  implies  that  the  Pereqs  were  followed 
not  by  new  discourse,  which  would  make  it  mean- 
ingless, but  by  narrative.  (2)  In  7  :  28-29  tne 
formula  is  combined  with  Mk.  1:22.  (3)  A 
second  loan  from  Mark  is  made  in  8:1-4 
(=  Mk.  1  :  40-44  =  Lk.  5  :  12-16),  and  this,  as 
we  have  seen,f  absurdly  ill  placed.  Both  are 
not  likely  to  have  been  made  by  the  same  hand. 
We  get  the  same  impression  (the  need  to  dis- 

*  In  point  of  fact  our  gospel,  as  we  have  seen,  is 
distinguished  not  l>y  five  but  by  seven  such  masses.  See 
above,  Appendix  A  (6),  p.  144.  f  p.  134. 


Appendix  A  169 

criminate  Matthew"'  from  Matthew")  in  26: 1, 
where  the  formula  is  misemployed  (ore  er&eo-e 
tovs  Xoyovs  .  .  .  €t7r£  ktX.)  .  Moreover,  we  have 
seen  that  the  symmetry  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  is  constantly  broken  without  regard  for 
its  beautiful  rhetorical  balance,  and  Sir  John's 
careful  investigations  bring  him  to  the  conclusion 
that  this  earlier  compilation  was  even  more  highly 
characterized  than  our  Matthew  (Matthew"1) 
by  attention  to  numerical  form  and  symmetry. 
Finally  he  sees  good  evidence  of  an  interrela- 
tion between  Matthew"  and  Luke.  We  also, 
besides  the  apparent  dependence  in  Lk.  6 : 
43-45,  have  already  noted  the  remarkable 
coincidence  of  Luke's  adoption  of  the  very 
same  passage  in  Mark  as  that  chosen  by 
Matthew  for  the  historical  setting  of  the  dis- 
course, and  now,  since  we  have  found  it  need- 
ful to  remove  the  second  loan  from  Mark 
(Mt.  8  :  1-4)  as  manifestly  out  of  place,  dis- 
cover that  in  consequence  the  sequence  of 
narrative  again  coincides  (Mt.  8  : 5-10,  13 
=  Lk.  7:2-10).  Two  such  coincidences  can- 
not be  accidental.  Since  our  Matthew  and 
Luke    are    certainly   independent,   it   is  either 


170  Appendix  A 

Matthew H  who  has  borrowed  from  Luke  (or 
one  of  his  sources),  or  vice  versa.  Soltau  has 
recently  come  forward  with  an  urgent  plea  for 
the  indispensableness  of  such  a  Matthew". 
Our  own  independent  investigations  have  shown 
the  assumption  to  be  entirely  correct,  so  far 
as  regards  the  necessity  of  an  intermediate 
link  to  account  for  the  relation  of  Matthew  to 
Luke.  There  was  a  combination  of  the  logia 
and  Mark  before  our  Matthew ;  but  it  merits 
quite  as  much  the  title  of  Pro  to- Luke  as 
Deutero-Matthew,  for  some  of  its  material  is 
of  the  very  bone  and  flesh  of  the  "  special 
source  "  of  Luke.  Of  this  type  is  the  present 
narrative  of  the  Centurion's  Servant,  which  ap- 
pears not  at  all  in  Mark,  but,  aside  from  Mt. 
8  :  5~r3  =  Lk-  7  =  i-io,  only  in  Jn.  4  :  46-54, 
and  there  in  widely  variant  form.  In  its  whole 
animus  it  is  distinctively  characteristic  of  what 
has  been  significantly  designated  "  The  gospel 
of  the  poor  and  oppressed,"  *  and  in  the  whole 
mode  of  representation  is  of  a  piece  with  Acts 
10  :  1  ff.     Moreover,  as  O.  Holtzmann  has  seen,t 

*  See  my  Introduction  to  the  ATew  Testament,  p.  220. 
f  Leben  Jesu,  1901,  p.  22. 


Appendix  A  171 

the  primary  form  is  the  Lucan.  That  of  Matthew 
is  unmistakably  secondary.  But  Matthew  can- 
not have  it  from  our  gospel  of  Luke,  since  the 
omission  of  so  much  else  would  be  unaccount- 
able, not  to  say  the  composition  of  the  work 
itself.  Neither  can  it  be  from  Mark,  as 
O.  Holtzmann  supposes,  imagining  an  acci- 
dental omission  from  our  form  of  the  second 
gospel;  for  it  has  no  affinity  with,  nor  place 
in  Mark.  It  belonged  to  that  special  source  of 
Luke  and  Acts  whose  chief  feature  is  its  cham- 
pionship of  the  lowly,  the  publican  and  sinner, 
the  Samaritan,  the  penitent  thief  and  repentant 
harlot,  the  Gentile  and  the  woman,  the  widowed 
and  poor,  the  lowly  and  despised.  Matthew1" 
shows  appreciation  of  the  bearing  of  the  logion, 
"  I  have  not  seen  such  faith  in  Israel,"  by 
attaching  the  refrain  of  the  eschatological  dis- 
course, Lk.  13  :  22-30  =  Mt.  24  :  37-25  :  46. 
But  the  very  separation  of  the  refrain  from  its 
proper  setting  (Lk.  13  :  28-30  =  Mt.  24  :  51  ; 
25:30;  cf.  13:42,  50;  22:13),  breaking  up 
the  symmetrical  form  of  Matthew"  is  evidence 
that  here  we  are  dealing  with  a  third  stage  of 
the    process.      The    narrative    will    have    run 


172  Appendix  A 

4:18-22  .  .  .  8:14-16  (17),    ib-i3   (cf.  Lk. 
7  : 1-10  ;  Jn.  4  :  46-54  ;  6  :  1  ff.),  18  ff.* 

With  Mt.  8:13  =  Lk.  7:10  we  reach  the 
end  in  Matthew  of  that  great  section  which  the 
evangelist  inserts  into  the  narrative  of  Mark. 
Mt.  8:14  resumes  the  Markan  narrative  at 
the  point  where  it  had  been  dropped  after 
4  :  i8-2  2,f  and  proceeds  with  the  chain  of  ten 
mighty  works,  the  pendant  to  the  discourse. 
Luke  also  has  reached  the  end  of  the  section. 
Doubtless  he  derives  his  ensuing  material, 
7 :  1 1-8 : 3,  from  the  same  source,  but  the 
connection  of  his  story  of  the  raising  of  the 
widow's  son  at  Nain  is  not  in  any  degree  with 

*  See  my  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  p.  201. 

t  The  demoniac  in  the  Synagogue  at  Capernaum,  Mk. 
1 :  21-28,  is  purposely  omitted.  Matthew  manifestly 
disapproves  the  theory  of  Mark  that  the  demons  con- 
stantly recognized  Jesus  as  the  Christ  and  had  to  be 
silenced  (Mk.  1:34;  3:  11-12;  cf.  Mt.  12:  16);  rightly 
judging  it,  apparently,  an  unwarranted  inference  from 
the  single  authentic  instance  of  Mk.  5:6-8  (=  Mt. 
8:29).  Mk.  1:21-28  thus  appears  to  him  (rightly  so 
far  as  the  demoniac's  outcry  is  concerned)  a  doublet  of 
5 : 1-20,  and  is  accordingly  omitted  ;  but  with  the  com- 
pensation of  a  second  demoniac  introduced  in  8 :  28-34  ; 
cf.  9:27-31;  20:29-34. 


Appendix  A  17) 

the  foregoing,  but  solely  with  the  subsequent 
account  of  Jesus'  answer  to  the  messengers  of 
the  Baptist,  bidding  them  tell  John  how,  among 
the  other  works  of  the  Christ,  "  the  dead  are 
raised  up." 

Here,  accordingly,  we  lay  down  our  immedi- 
ate task.  Not  all  the  conclusions  reached  are 
of  equal  probability.  Where  Matthew  gives 
one  connection  for  a  saying  and  Luke  another 
we  may  have  reasonable  confidence  in  choosing 
that  which  seems  best  adapted  to  the  intrinsic 
sense.  Much  less  can  be  felt  when  we  depart 
from  both,  though  such  cases  are  rare.  Finally, 
the  inferences  drawn  as  to  the  stages  through 
which  the  two-fold  report  of  the  discourse  has 
come  to  us,  will  seem,  no  doubt,  especially  pre- 
carious. It  is  but  fair  to  add  that  our  con- 
clusions as  to  a  Matthew1'  employing  a  Lucan 
form  of  the  logia  rests  also  on  additional  evi- 
dence more  than  we  have  space  for  here.  The 
student  should  consult  Feine,  Eine  vorkano- 
nische  Ueberlieferung  des  Lukas,  1891,  and 
Soltau,  Eine  Liicke  der  Synoptischcn  Forschung, 
1899,  besides    the  standard  works  of  Weiss,* 

*  Markusevangeliutn  and  Matttnzusevangcliwn. 


174  Appendix  A 

Weizsacker,*  and  Holtzmann,f  and  the  re- 
cent admirable  discussions  of  Hawkins  \  and 
Wernle.§  Further  study  will  doubtless  lead  to 
results  divergent  in  detail  from  those  we  here 
present ;  but  in  the  main,  and  especially  in  the 
more  vital  question  of  the  earliest  attainable 
form  and  connection  of  the  great  discourses  of 
Jesus,  we  may  hope  to  see  them  ultimately 
confirmed. 

*  Evangelische  Geschichte. 
t  Synoptische  Evangelien. 
%  Hora  Synoptica,  1899. 
§  Synoptische  Frage,  1899. 


APPENDIX    B 

TEXT-CRITICAL  NOTES  TO  THE  DIS- 
COURSE ON  THE  HIGHER  RIGHT- 
EOUSNESS 

( i )  The  (3  text  of  Mt.  5  :  4-5  inverts  the  order 
of  these  two  verses.  Verse  5  being  simply  a 
reproduction  of  Ps.  37  :  n,  we  should  probably 
regard  it  as  a  gloss  which  has  crept  in  at  differ- 
ent points  from  the  margin.  (See  above,  Ap- 
pendix A,  p.  127.) 

(2)  In  6:21  Luke  has  twice,  and  in  v.  25 
once,  an  explanatory  vvv  which  the  parallel  in 
Matthew  shows  to  be  editorial.  In  the  same 
category  is  the  eV  accivg  rrj  fip-epn,  v.  23.  The 
real  contrast  is  not  between  present  and  future, 
but  seeming  and  real.  The  words  koL  otuv  d<£o- 
piaiaaiv  v/xas  KCU  ovti&ivuxnv  and  eveKa  tov  vlov  tov 
avOpwirov  (Mt.  hiKtv  i/xov)  in  v.  22  are  also 
probably  added  to  conform  with  the  treatment 
actually  experienced  by  the  church.  The  /?  text 
of  Luke  omits  ko.1  ova8tWm>  (introduced  by  the 
175 


176  Appendix  B 

a  text  from  Matthew),  and  Kal  orav  a<pop[o-uicnv 
ifxas  clearly  imports  later  conditions.  "Evexev 
ifxov  (tou  vlov  tov  avQpoiirov)  like  xpevSofxcvoi  (Mt. 
5:11)  is  a  qualification  of  the  statement  in- 
tended to  guard  against  misuse. 

Comparison  of  the  antistrophe,  v.  26,  confirms 
this  reduction  of  the  overloaded  v.  22,  and  shows 
the  contrast  to  have  been  simply  between  being 
well  and  ill  spoken  of  by  the  world. 

In  vv.  23  and  26  ol  iraTipvi  avTwv  is  unnec- 
essary and  does  not  appear  in  v.  26  (/?  text) 
nor  in  the  Matthaean  form.  It  looks  like  an 
effort  to  make  the  statement  exact.  The  j3  text 
is  also  followed  in  the  omission  of  ko.1  KXavaere 
in  v.  25,  and  yap  in  v.  26,  on  the  principle  bre- 
vior  lectio  preferenda.  It  is  also  followed  in  the 
omission  of  7tc£vt€s  in  v.  26,  and  the  reading  tois 
ip.TreTrXyjap.evoi'i  in  v.  25  for  vplv  ol. 

(3)  In  Mt.  5:17  kcu  rows  Trpo<pr)Ta<;  appears 
to  be  redactional.  The  contrast  oi  KaraXvo-at 
AXXa  TvX-qpdma  shows  that  irX-qpOyo-ai  is  not  here 
used  in  the  sense  employed  of  prophecy.  In 
w.  19  and  20  we  read  fiao-iXeia  tov  Oeov  on  the 
principle  explained  in  Appendix  A  (p.  128).  In 
v.  19  ydp  for  ovv.     (See  Appendix  A,  p.  133.) 


Appendix  B  177 

(4)  In  Mt.  5  :  22-23  both  sense  and  structure 
require  the  emendation  of  Dr.  Peters  *  above 
adopted.  The  strophic  form  is  reproduced  in 
the  succeeding  antithesis  (v.  31)  ,  the  contrast 
is  between  the  heavier  offence  {uny  'Pa/ca),  on 
which  the  Sanhedrin  impose  a  light  penalty,  and 
the  trivial  one  (eiTnj  Matpe)  on  which  the  heaviest 
is  imposed.  Jesus  does  not,  of  course,  threaten 
his  disciples  with  the  penalties  of  the  Sanhedrin. 
In  5  :  23  we  insert  ippWrj  to  correspond  with 
v.  31.  The  emendation  is  not  strictly  neces- 
sary, for  Mt.  23  :  18  affords  an  exact  parallel 
where  the  corresponding  Ae'yowi  must  be  tacitly 
supplied. 

(5)  The  words  7rapeKTos  Xoyov  7ropveias,  Mt. 
5:32,  are  certainly  a  gloss.  Jesus'  attitude  on 
the  subject  of  divorce  is  clearly  set  forth  in  Mk. 
10:1-12,  where  this  exception  is  significantly 
wanting  even  in  the  rule  (10:1 1-12)  ;  but  again 
introduced  by  Matthew m.f  Fortunately  we 
have  here  the  authority  of  Luke  as  well  in  the 
parallel,  Lk.  16:18,  for  rejecting  the  interpo- 
lated exception.     But  the  general  principle  still 

*  Jonrn.  of  Bib.  Lit.,  1892,  i,  p.  131. 

fSee  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  Neutestl.  Theol.,  I,  p.  142. 

N 


178  Appendix  B 

more  emphatically  excludes  it.  The  position 
taken  by  Jesus  is  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  the 
request  to  arbitrate  (Lk.  12  :  13).  He  refuses 
to  occupy  the  seat  of  the  law-giver  or  magistrate 
in  the  imperfect  conditions  of  the  world.  No 
fault  is  found  with  Moses  for  the  enactment 
necessitated  by  the  hardness  of  men's  hearts 
(wrong  social  and  moral  conditions) .  Only  this 
legislation,  whose  aim  is  simply  to  make  the  best 
of  things  as  they  are  in  the  interest  of  the  family 
and  home,  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the 
ideal  standard  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  of  which 
Jesus  finds  the  pattern  in  the  utterance  of  the 
Creator  to  the  unfallen  pair  in  Paradise.  With 
the  ideal  conditions  alone  does  Jesus  concern 
himself  in  formulating  the  principles  of  the 
higher  righteousness  of  the  kingdom.  The  ex- 
ception 7rapeKTos  Xoyov  7ropvetas  transforms  the 
principle  into  a  rule,  and  involves  Jesus  in  the 
rabbinic  debate  between  the  schools  of  Shammai 
and  Hillel.  It  is  as  much  out  of  place  in  Mt. 
5  :  32  as  it  would  be  in  Gen.  2  :  24. 

The  reading  of  Lk.  16  :  18,  poixtva  for  7ro«i 
avr^v  ixoix*vOyvai,  adopted  by  Wendt,  is  com- 
mended by  its  greater  simplicity.     (See  Wendt, 


Appendix  B  179 

op.  cit,  p.  59.)     In  v.  28  avTr]v  is  omitted  after 
iirLdvfirjaai  on  the  authority  of  the  (3  text. 

(6)  The  reading  of  the  (3  text  is  adopted  in 
Mt.  5:37  instead  of  corw  8«  6  Aoyos  i/xwv  vcu  vat, 
ou  ov.  This  is  indeed  the  harsher,  but  may  be 
accounted  for  as  affected  by  II  Cor.  1  :  17-18. 
The  sense  can  hardly  be  other  than  as  given  in 
the  /3  text,  let  your  simple  affirmation  or  nega- 
tion be  conclusive.  This  form  of  the  text  also 
omits  6/xoo-^s  from  v.  36.  (See  Blass  Evangelium 
secundum  Matthceum,  1901,  ad  loc.) 

(7)  In  Mt.  5  :  39  the  Lucan  form  is  preferred 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  verse  on  account  of 
greater  conciseness  and  agreement  in  form  with 
verses  40,  42.  The  sense  is  identical.  Mt. 
7  :  1 2  is  placed  here  on  the  same  authority.  The 
clause  ovros  yap  icrriv  6  vo/xos  kcu  ol  7rpo<p7]Tai, 
wanting  in  Luke,  is  substantially  a  doublet  of 
22  :  40.  It  represents  too  characteristically  the 
view  of  Matthew"',  and  is  too  easily  accounted 
for  redactionally  (cf.  5:17)  to  be  admitted  as 
genuine.  In  Mt.  5:42  ano  aov  is  omitted  before 
Saviow&u  with  the  ft  text. 

(8)  We  add  between  Mt.  5  :  47  and  48  the 
verse  Lk.  6  :  35,  but  with  much  hesitation.     It 


180  Appendix  B 

lengthens  the  discourse  without  materially  adding 
to  the  sense.  But  the  rhetorical  structure  and 
balance  seem  to  require  it. 

(9)  In  Mt.  6:18  the  words  tw  ev  rw  Kpv<f>ai<a 
and  6  fiXiirav  iv  tw  Kpv^aiia  might  seem  essential 
to  symmetry  with  verses  4  and  6.  But  they  are 
bracketed  by  Blass,  *  and  it  is  easier  to  account 
for  them  by  supplementation  from  4  and  6  than 
to  account  for  their  omission,  especially  as  we 
have  here  not  Kpvn-Tto  as  in  4,  6,  but  Kpvcfxiiu. 
In  v.  6  crov  after  rapa'iov  and  Ovpav  and  tw  before 
the  first  KpvTTTw,  which  are  also  wanting  in  some 
texts,  are  omitted  as  unessential. 

(10)  The  briefer  form  of  Lk.  6:46-48 
commends  itself  in  preference  to  Mt.  7  :  21-25 
except  in  one  respect.  The  more  elaborate 
description  of  the  building  process  eo-Kaxj/ev  kcu 
ifidOwev  kol  Wr/Ktv  6ip.i\iov  seems  less  original 
than  the  simple  contrast  ort  rrjv  irirpav  .  .  .  eVi 
t?)i/  ajip,ov.  The  Matthaean  form  is  accordingly 
adopted  in  7  :  24b,  25b-2  7. 

*  Op.  cit.  with  a  reference  to  Beitr.  z.  Ford.  Christl. 
TkeoL,  IV,  17  sq.,  a  work  not  accessible  to  me. 


APPENDIX   C 

THE  GREATER  DISCOURSES  OF  JESUS 
CONNECTED  WITH  THE  SERMON 
ON  THE  MOUNT,  IN  CONJECTU- 
RALLY  RESTORED  CONTEXT,  FORM, 
AND  ORDER* 

I.   The  Discourse  on  Prayer 

Lk.  11:1-13;    18  :  1-8  =  Mt.  6:  7-13;   7:7-11 

The  Occasion 

Lk.  11  :  1 

Lk.  1 1  *  And  it  came  to  pass  that  he  was  in 
a  certain  place  praying ;  and  when  he  ceased 
one  of  his  disciples  said  to  him,  Lord,  teach 

*The  principal  transpositions  of  text  in  this  Appendix 
are  justified  in  Appendix  A,  without  specific  reference 
in  each  case.  For  omissions  and  other  changes  of  read- 
ing, and  for  critical  results  otherwise  embodied  in  the 
text  of  the  greater  discourses  outside  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  resort  has  been  had  to  a  few  simple  typographi- 
cal devices.  Narrative  material,  such  as  the  evangelist's 
description  of  the  occasion  of  the  discourse,  is  double 
181 


182  Appendix  C 

us  to  pray,  even  as  John  also  taught  his  dis- 
ciples.    2And  he  said  unto  them, — 

leaded.  The  discourse  of  Jesus  is  set  in.  Where  it 
seems  to  exhibit  the  lyric  structure  of  prophetic  utter- 
ance, the  lines  are  divided  so  as  to  show  the  parallelism, 
and  strophes  so  as  to  show  the  refrain.  Passages  which 
appear  to  be  redactional  additions  are  printed  in  smaller 
type.  The  place  of  such  as  are  simply  removed  to  other 
contexts  is  marked  by  *  *  *  .  Some  footnotes  were 
naturally  found  indispensable,  besides  these  typographi- 
cal devices  —  not  so  much  to  justify  the  reconstruction 
in  detail,  as  to  indicate  in  a  general  way  on  what  theory 
the  critic  has  proceeded  in  his  attempt  to  reproduce  syn- 
thetically all  that  remains  of  the  discourse  in  its  true 
historical  setting  and  original  context.  Also  a  marginal 
reference  or  two  is  given  where  close  correspondence  in 
thought  or  phraseology  gives  evidence  of  coinage  from 
the  same  mental  mould.  This  mould  may  sometimes  be 
the  evangelist's,  sometimes  (e.g.  in  case  of  the  phrase, 
"they  have  received  their  reward,"  in  Mt.  6:  2,  5,  16, 
compared  with  Lk.  6  :  24  and  16  :  25)  we  must  at  least 
carry  it  back  to  some  proto-evangelist  behind  our  Mat- 
thew and  our  Luke,  if  not  to  Jesus  himself.  But  justifi- 
cation in  detail  of  every  reading  and  every  synthesis 
adopted  must  not  be  expected.  Let  the  results  given  be 
rather  regarded  only  as  tentative  suggestions,  to  stand  or 
fall  according  to  subsequent  developments.  A  heavy- 
faced  type  has  been  employed  for  passages  improperly 
placed  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  here  restored  to 
their  original  connection,  that  the  reader's  attention  may 
be  called  to  the  fact. 


Appendix  C  183 

Avoid  Heathenish  Patter 

Mt.  6  :  7 

Mt.  6  7When  ye  pray,  babble  not  by  rote,  as 
do  the  heathen,  for  they  imagine  they  will 
be  heard  for  their  volubility.  8  *  *  *  . 
9  After  this  manner,  therefore,  pray  ye  :  — 

The  Lord's  Prayer 
Lk.  ii  :  2-4  =  Mt.  6:9-13 

Lk.  n2  (i)      Father,  hallowed  be  thy  name  ; 

(ii)     thy  kingdom  come 

(iii)  3  Daily  give  us  our  bread  for  the 
morrow. 

(iv)  4And  forgive  us  our  sins,  for 
we  ourselves  also  forgive  every 
debtor  of  ours."  *  °  Mt  18  :  35; 

(v)  And  bring  us  not  into  tempta- 
tion. 

*  On  the  significance  of  the  smaller  type,  see  preced- 
ing note.  The  original  form  of  the  prayer  would  seem 
to  have  included  simpiy  five  brief  petitions.  Hence 
the  supporting  clause  attached  to  the  petition  for  for- 
giveness will  not  have  more  valid  claims  to  originality 
than  the  similar  clauses  appended  in  the  Matthcean 
version  to  petitions  ii  and  v,  though  the  addition  to 
petition  iv  is  doubtless  older,  since  it  appears  in  both 
Matthew  and  Luke. 


Mk.  11 :  26. 


184  Appendix  C 

Parable  of  the  Importunate  Widow 
Lk.  iS  :  i-8 
Lk.  1 8  JAnd  he  spake  a  parable  unto  them 

on  the  need  of  always  praying  and  never  losing 

heart,  saying, 

2  There  was  in  a  certain  city  a  judge  who 
had  neither  fear  for  God  nor  respect  for 
man.  3And  there  was  a  widow  in  that 
city,  and  she  came  and  said  to  him,  Give 
me  justice  of  my  adversary.  4And  for  a 
time  he  would  not.  But  afterward  he  said 
to  himself,  Though  I  have  no  fear  for  God 
nor  respect  for  man,  5yet  because  this 
widow  annoys  me  I  will  do  her  justice, 
that  she  may  not  plague  me  by  her  per- 
«  Lk.  16:8.  petual  coming.     And  the  Lord  said,"  Hear 

what  the  unjust  judge  saith.  7And  shall 
not  God  do  justice  for  his  own  chosen 
people,  who  cry  unto  him  day  and  night, 
though  he  be  longsuffering  in  their  case  ? 
8 1  tell  you  he  will  vindicate  them  speedily. 
Yet  when  the  Son  of  Man  comes  will  he 
find  faith  on  earth  ?  * 

*  This  parable  is  employer!  in  the  connection  given 
it  by  Luke  to  support  the  doctrine  of  the  nearness  of 
"the  day  when  the  Son  of  Man  is  revealed"  (17:30). 
But  clearly  the  Parousia  is  here  referred  to  only  as  an 
example  of  answers  to  prayer  that  seem  long  deferred, 
the  principal  aim  being  not  to  warn  of  the  Parousia,  but. 


Appendix  C  185 

Parable  of  the  Importunate  Friend 
Lk.  11:5-8 
Lk.  1 1  5  And  he  said  unto  them  :  — 

Which  of  you  shall  have  a  friend,  and  shall 
go  to  him  at  midnight  and  say  to  him, 
6  Friend,  lend  me  three  loaves ;  for  a  friend 
of  mine  has  come  to  my  house  from  a 
journey,  and  I  have  nothing  to  set  before 
him;  —  7and  he  from  inside  shall  answer 
and  say,  Trouble  me  not :  the  door  is  now 
shut  and  the  children  are  with  me  in  bed ; 
I  cannot  rise  and  give  thee.  8I  tell  you, 
though  he  will  not  rise  and  give  him  any- 
thing because  he  is  his  friend,  yet  because 
of  his  persistence  he  will  get  up  and  give 
him  all  he  requires. 

Persist  in  Prayer 
Lk.  11:9-13  =  Mt.  7:7-11 

Lk.  1 1  9  And  I  tell  you, 

Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you, 
Seek,  and  ye  shall  find, 

Knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened  unto  you. 

to  inculcate  persistence  in  believing  prayer  (note  v.  8b). 
Accordingly  we  range  this  parable  alongside  its  counter- 
part, the  parable  of  the  Importunate  Friend,  disregarding 
the  order  of  Luke.  Both  these  parables  fail  to  appear 
in  Matthew,  perhaps  because  of  the  seemingly  disparag- 
ing comparison  of  the  divine  motive  in  hearing  prayer. 


186  Appendix  C 

10  For  everyone  that  asketh  receiveth, 
And  he  that  seeketh  findeth, 

And  to  him  that  knocketh  it  shall  be 
opened. 

Mt.    7  9  Or  what  father  of  you,  if  his  son  ask 

bread  will  give  him  a  stone  ? 
10  Or  if  he  ask  a  fish,  will  he  give  him 

a  serpent? 
Lk.  ii  13If  ye  then,  wicked  as  ye  are,  know 

how  to  give  good   gifts  to   your 

children, 
how  much  more  will  your  Father  in 

heaven  give  good  things  to  them 

that  ask  him  ? 

II.   The  Discourse  on  Earthly  vs.  Heavenly 
Wealth 

Lk.  12  :  13-34;    16  :  1-9,  n-13  =  Mt.  6  :  19-21,  24-34 

The  Occasion 

Lk.  12  :  13-14 

Lk.  12  13And  a  man  from  out  the  crowd  said 
to  him,  Teacher,  tell  my  brother  to  divide  the 
inheritance  with  me.  14But  he  said  to  him, 
Man,  who  made  me  a  judge  or  arbitrator  over 
you  ? 


Appendix  C  187 

The  Principle :  Jesus  shows  what  are  the  Real 
Values  of  Life 
Lk.  12:  15 
Lk.  1 2  13  And  he  said  unto  them, 

Take  heed  and  guard  yourselves  from  all 
covetousness,  for  a  man's  living  does  not 
consist  in  his  wealth  —  the  things  that  he 
possesses." 


a  v.  22  ; 
Mt.  6:25. 


Parable  of  the  Rich  Fool 
Lk.  12: 16-21 
Lk.  12  I6And  he  spake  a  parable  unto  them, 
saying, 

A  certain  rich  man's  farm  bore  great  crops. 
17And  he  was  reasoning  with  himself,  say- 
ing, What  shall  I  do,  for  I  have  no  room  to 
gather  in  my  crops  ?  18  And  he  said,  This 
will  I  do.  I  will  tear  down  my  barns  and 
build  greater,6  and  will  gather  in  thither  all  ^.24; 
my  grain  and  my  produce.  19And  I  will 
say  to  my  soul,  Soul,  thou  hast  many  goods 
laid  up  for  many  years  ;  take  a  rest,  eat, 
drink  and  be  merry.  "  But  God  said  unto 
him,  Senseless  man,  this  very  night  thy  life 
will  be  required  of  thee ;  who  then  will 
have  all  that  thou  hast  prepared  ?  21So  is 
he  that  storeth  up  for  himself  and  is  not 
rich  as  toward  God. 


188  Appendix  C 

Application :  Jesus  shows  that  Life  is  not  for 

Food  and  Raiment 

Lk.  12  :  22-34  =  Mt.  6 :  25-34 

Lk.  1 2  22  And  he  said  unto  his  disciples, 
Mt.  6  ■  Therefore  I  tell  you 

Be  not  anxious  as  to  your  life  what 

to  eat, 
Nor  as  to  the  hody,  what  to  put  on. 
Is  not  life  more  than  food, 
»  Lk.  12 :  15,  and  the  body  than  raiment  ?  ■ 

22-  26  Consider  the  ravens, 

how  they  sow  not,  nor  reap, 
nor  do  they  garner  into  barns ; 
yet  God  feedeth  them. 
Are  not  you  worth  more  than  they  ? 

27  Which  of  you  can  add  a  span  to  his 

age  by  anxiety  ? 

28  Why  then  be  anxious  about  raiment  ? 
Take  a  lesson  from  the   meadow- 
lilies'  growth, 

they  toil  not,  neither  do  they  spin  ; 

29  Yet  I  tell  you,  Solomon  himself,  in 
»  Lk.  12  :  18,  all  his  splendor/ 

*?'  ,  was  not  robed  like  one  of  these. 

Lccl.  2  :  i-ii. 

30  But  if  the  meadow-grass,  that  is 

to-day 
and  to-morrow  serves  as  fuel  for 
the  oven, 


Appendix  C  189 

God  doth  so  clothe, 
shall  he  not  much  more  clothe  you, 
distrustful  ones  ? 

31  Take  then  no  anxious  thought, 
saying,  What  shall  we  eat,  or  drink, 

or  wear  ? 

32  For  all  such  things  are  the  pursuit 

of  Gentiles ; 
but  your  Father  knoweth  ye  need 

all  these  things.* 
Seek  ye  then  his  kingdom  ; 
and  all  these  things  shall  be  given 

you  besides. 

Lk.  12  s  Fear  not,  little  flock, 

it  is  your  Father's  decree 
to  give  you  the  kingdom. 

Mt.    6  u  Lay  up  for  yourselves  no  stores  upon 
earth 
where  moth  and  rust  consume 
and  where  thieves  break  in  and  steal. 

*  That  is,  those  who  are  conscious  of  a  divine  calling, 
like  Israel,  the  people  of  God,  should  assume  that  provi- 
sion will  be  made  for  their  needs  at  least  equal  to  that 
made  for  ravens  and  lilies.  The  Gentiles  have  no  such 
consciousness.  Compare  Ps.  Aristeas,  140  (90  B.C.), 
"The  Jews  are  called  by  the  Egyptians  the  People  of 
God,  because  they  are  not,  like  others,  men  of  food  and 
drink  and  clothing,  but  are  given  to  searching  out  God's 
works." 


190  Appendix  C 

Lk.  12  ^Sell  what  ye  have  and  give  it  for 
alms, 
make  yourselves  purses  that  do  not 

wear  out, 
a  treasure  in  heaven  that  will  not 
fail, 
Mt.    6  M  where  neither  moth  nor  rust  con- 
sumes 
and  where  thieves  do  not  break  in 
nor  steal. 
21  For  where  the  treasure  is,  there  also  is 
the  heart. 

Two  Parables  on  the  Use  to  be   made  of 
Earthly  Wealth 

First  Parable :  Jesus  shows  by  the  Example  of 
the  Provident  Steward  how  Treasure  can  be 
stored  in  Heaven 

Lk.  16: 1-9 

Lk.  16  'He  said  also  unto  the  disciples, 
There  was  a  certain  rich  man  who  had  a 
steward,  and  accusation  was  brought  him 
against  the  steward  of  squandering  his  prop- 
erty. 2So  he  called  him,  and  said  to  him, 
What  is  this  I  hear  about  thee?  Give  in 
the  account  of  thy  stewardship,  for  thou 
mayst  no  longer  be   steward.     3Now  the 


Appendix  C  191 

steward  said  to  himself,  What  am  I  to  do, 
seeing  my  master  taketh  away  the  steward- 
ship from  me?  To  dig  I  have  not  strength. 
To  beg  I  am  ashamed.  —  *  I  know  what 
I  will  do,  so  that  when  I  am  put  out  of 
the  stewardship  people  may  take  me  in  to 
their  own  homes.  4So  calling  in  each  of 
his  master's  debtors,  he  proceeded  to  say 
to  the  first,  How  much  owest  thou  to  my 
master?  And  he  said,  A  hundred  casks  of 
oil.  And  he  said  to  him,  Here ;  take  thy 
contract,  sit  down  at  once  and  write  fifty 
instead.  7Then  he  said  to  another,  And 
how  much  owest  thou?  And  he  said,  A 
hundred  quarters  of  wheat.  He  says  to 
him,  Take  thy  contract  and  write  eighty. 
8  And  the  master  praised  the  dishonest 
steward  for  his  shrewd  dealing ;  for  the 
sons  of  this  world  are  shrewder  than  the 
sons  of  light  in  their  conduct  toward  their 
own  generation.  9And  I  tell  you,  Use  your 
'  vile  lucre  '  to  make  friends  for  yourselves ; 
so  that  when  it  fails,  these  may  receive  you 
into  eternal  dwellings.* 

*  On  the  reasons  for  connecting  Lk.  12 :  13-34  with 
16  :  1-9,  11-13,  see  Appendix  A  (S),  p.  154.  We  para- 
phrase the  peculiar  expression  "  mammon  of  unrighteous- 
ness" (see  below,  Lk.  16  :  13,  and  cf.  "steward  of  un- 
righteousness," v.  8,  "judge  of  unrighteousness,"  Lk. 
18:6)  by  the  current  phrase  '  vile  lucre.' 


192  Appendix  C 

Second  Parable  :  Jesus  shows  by  the  Example  of 
the  Intrusted  Talents  that  God  requires  us  to 
turn  our  Resources  and  Opportunity  to  Good 
Account 

Lk.  19  :  1 1-28  =  Mt.  25  :  14-30 

Lk.  19  nAnd  as  they  were  listening  to  this, 
he  related  to  them  a  second  parable,  because  he 
was  near  Jerusalem,  and  they  supposed  the  kingdom 
of  God  was  about  to  appear  at  once.*     So  he  said, 

*  In  the  Lucan  form  the  Parable  of  the  Talents  (Mince) 
has  undergone  a  decided  transformation,  to  which  the 
explanatory  addition  in  19:  11  affords  the  key.  The  di- 
dactic intent  of  the  parable  is  clearly  man's  responsibility 
for  God-given  talent  and  opportunity.  The  mere  length 
of  time  to  elapse  before  the  accounting  is  not  an  essential 
feature.  Its  purpose  is  therefore  incorrectly  stated  in 
Lk.  19:  11.  In  Mt.  25:  19  the  "long  time"  simply  al- 
lows for  the  doubling  of  the  intrusted  capital.  But  take 
just  the  features  which  appear  only  in  the  Lucan  form 
("to  receive  a  kingdom  and  to  return  "  in  v.  12,  verse  14, 
"having  received  the  kingdom"  in  v.  ic;,  and  verse  27), 
and  all  subserve  the  purpose  of  making  this  change  in 
the  original  purpose.  Not  God  but  Christ  now  appears 
as  furnishing  the  capital,  which  is  correspondingly  re- 
duced (twenty  dollars  as  against  fifty  thousand)  and 
equally  divided.  (Nevertheless  in  v.  24  the  first  ser- 
vant is  still  designated  "  He  that  had  the  ten  mince," 
implying  an  original  in  which  the  division,  as  in  Mat- 
thew, had  been  unequal.)     He  goes  to  receive  a  king' 


Appendix  C  193 

Mt.  25  14  A  certain  man  going  on  a  journey 
summoned  his  slaves,  and  delivered  to  them 
his  property.  15To  one  he  gave  fifty  thou- 
sand dollars,  to  another  twenty,  to  another 
ten  ;  to  each  according  to  his  ability.  And 
he  said  to  them,  Do  business  with  this  till  I 
return,  and  went  away.     lfi  Straightway  he 

dom  ;  he  is  opposed  by  his  fellow-countrymen  ;  he  returns 
to  punish  the  rebellious.  All  these  new  traits  serve  to 
transform  the  parable  into  an  allegory  of  the  Second 
Coming  and  echo  the  idea  that  it  was  uttered  "  Because 
he  was  nigh  to  Jerusalem  and  they  supposed  that  the  king- 
dom of  God  would  immediately  appear,"  an  idea  which 
the  evangelist  in  other  passages  shows  a  desire  to  correct 
{e.g.  17:  25).  Moreover,  besides  the  evidence  of  altera- 
tion in  verse  24,  all  these  new  traits  are  drawn  from  the 
well-known  experience  of  Archelaus  (Jos.  Ant.  xvii,  9:3; 
11 :  1-14;  13  :  1).  The  Lucan  form  is  therefore  certainly 
less  original  than  the  Matthsean,  which  we  adopt.  This, 
however,  does  not  guarantee  every  detail  of  the  Mat- 
threan.  Thus  the  last  clause  of  verses  21  and  23  (want- 
ing in  the  Lucan  form)  and  verse  30  (composed  of  two 
refrains  repeated  in  Mt.  S:  12;  22:13;  25  :  30  and  8:  12; 
13:42,50;  22:13;  24  :  5 x  >  25  :  3°)  f°rm  an  incongruous 
and  probably  later  element.  (See  next  note.)  Luke,  on 
the  other  hand,  has  a  saying  in  12:  47-48  which  should 
probably  be  added.  For  the  servant  who  knew  his  Lord's 
will  and  did  it  not  (a  scarcely  veiled  reference  to  Israel, 
cf.  Rom.  2  :  17-20  and  Amos  3  :  1-2)  is  clearly  the  "  un- 
profitable servant "  of  the  parable.  Here  too  the  moral 
is,  Superior  opportunity  implies  greater  responsibility. 
o 


194  appendix  C 

that  had  received  the  fifty  thousand  dollars 
engaged  in  business  with  it  and  made  fifty 
thousand  more.  17  Likewise  he  of  the  twenty 
thousand,  twenty  thousand  more.  18But  he 
that  received  the  ten  thousand  went  away 
and  dug  a  hole  in  the  ground  and  hid  his 
master's  money.  19  Now  after  a  long  time 
the  master  of  those  slaves  comes  and  settles 
his  account  with  them.  20  So  he  that  had  re- 
ceived the  fifty  thousand  dollars  came  and 
brought  fifty  thousand  more,  saying,  Sir, 
thou  didst  deliver  to  me  fifty  thousand  dol- 
lars. See,  I  have  gained  fifty  thousand 
more.  21  His  master  said  unto  him,  Well 
done,  good  and  faithful  slave,  thou  wast 
faithful  over  few  things,  I  will  set  thee  over 
many.  Enter  thy  master's  feast*  2He  also 
who  had  received  the  twenty  thousand  dol- 
lars came  and  said,  Sir,  thou  deliveredst  to 
me  twenty  thousand  dollars.  See,  I  have 
gained  twenty  thousand  more.  a  His  mas- 
ter said  to  him,  Well  done,  good  and  faith- 
ful slave,  thou  hast  been  faithful  over  a  few 
things,  I  will  set  thee  over  many.  Enter  thy 
master's  feast.*    24Then  he  who  had  received 

*  An  assimilation  by  the  evangelist  of  this  parable  to 
those  he  has  placed  alongside.  The  original  has  no  ref- 
erence to  a  feast,  but  suitably  rewards  the  slave  by  a 
position  of  more  exalted  service. 


Appendix  C  195 

the  ten  thousand  came  and  said,  Sir,  I  knew 
thee  to  be  an  exacting  man,  reaping  where 
thou  didst  not  sow,  and  garnering  where 
thou  didst  not  winnow.  ^So  I  was  afraid 
and  went  and  hid  thy  ten  thousand  dollars 
in  the  ground.  Here  thou  hast  what  be- 
longs to  thee.  *  But  his  master  answering 
said  to  him,  Thou  wicked  and  backward 
slave  !  Thou  knewest  that  I  reap  where  I 
sowed  not,  and  garner  in  where  I  winnowed 
not?  ^Then  oughtest  thou  to  have  placed 
my  money  with  the  bankers,  and  I  would 
have  gone  and  obtained  my  own  with  inter- 
est. M  Therefore  take  away  from  him  the 
ten  thousand  dollars  and  give  it  to  him  that 
hath  the  fifty  thousand.  Lk.  19  x  I  tell  you, 
To  everyone  that  hath  shall  be  given  more, 
and  from  him  that  hath  not  shall  be  taken 
what  he  hath. 


First  Application :  Jesus  teaches  that  the  Use  of 
Wealth  may  show  Fitness  for  Higher  Things 

Lk.  16  :  10-13  =  Mt-  6 :  24 

Lk.  16  10He  that  is  faithful  in  a  very  little  is 
faithful  also  in  much, 
and  he   that  is  faithless  in  a  very 
little  is  faithless  also  in  much. 


196  Appendix  C 

1 6  uIf  then  ye  were  not  found  faithful  in 
the  matter  of  vile  lucre, 
who   will    intrust    to    you    the   true 
wealth? 

12  And  if  ye  were  not  found  faithful  in 

another's  property, 
who  will  give  you  your  own  ? 

13  No  house-servant  can  be  slave  to  two 

masters ; 

for  either  he  will  hate  the  one  and 
love  the  other, 

or  else  he  will  cling  to  one  and  hold 
the  other  in  aversion. 

Ye  cannot  serve  both  God  and  Mam- 
mon. 

Second  Application  :  Israel's  Greater  Enlighten- 
ment implies  Heavier  Punishment  for  Unfaith- 
fulness 

Lk.  12: 47-48 

Lk.  12  *7  Moreover  that  slave  which  knew  his 
«  Rom. 2: 17-  master's  will," 

yet  made  not  ready  nor  did  accord- 
ing to  his  will, 
&  Am.  3 : 2.  shall  be  beaten  with  many  stripes.6 

48  But  he  that  knew  it  not, 
and  did  things  worthy  of  stripes 
shall  be  beaten  with  few. 


Appendix  C  197 

To  whomsoever  much  is  given, 
from  him  shall  much  be  required, 
and  with  whomsoever  people  place 

much  in  trust, 
from  him  they  demand  the  more. 

Two  Additional  Parables  on  False  Stand- 
ards of  Judgment 

Occasion 

Lk. 16: 14-15 

Lk.  16  uNow  the  Pharisees  were  hearkening 
to  all  these  things,  they  were  avaricious,*  and  they 
began  to  mock  at  him.     15And  he  said  to  them, 

*  If  avarice  was  a  sin  specially  characteristic  of  the 
Pharisees,  of  which  we  have  no  evidence  elsewhere,  it  is 
not  the  one  rebuked  by  Jesus  in  the  words  which  follow, 
nor  even  in  the  ensuing  parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and 
Lazarus.  Doubtless  the  early  Christian  opponent  of  the 
Pharisees  saw  his  antagonist  depicted  in  the  person  of 
Dives,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  found  occasion  even  to  ex- 
tend the  application  of  this  minatory  parable  to  the  Jew- 
ish adherent  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets  by  an  addendum 
directed  against  Dives'  "  five  brethren."  But  the  par- 
able itself  does  not  call  the  rich  man  a  Pharisee.  It  is 
not  directed  against  love  of  money  ;  but  rebukes  worldly 
standards  of  judgment.  Its  theme  is  precisely  as  stated 
in  v.  15,  "That  which  is  exalted  among  men  is  an 
abomination    in  the  sight  of  God."     Men   admire    and 


198  Appendix  C 

Ye  are  they  that  make  yourselves  out  right- 

« 18 :  14.  eous  in  the  sight  of  men a ;  but  God  know- 

eth  your  hearts.      For  that  which  among 

envy  the  rich  man  ;  God  may  exalt  the  lowest  beggar. 
It  does  not  belong  to  the  exposition  of  this  principle  to 
say  that  the  rich  man  was  bad  and  the  beggar  good,  or 
that  he  was  a  Pharisee  and  the  beggar  a  Publican  ;  the 
point,  and  the  whole  point,  is  that  differences  in  earthly 
conditions  are  not  a  blind  to  the  divine  judgment.  Thus 
the  clause,  <pCKdpyvpoi  vwdpxovres,  in  v.  14,  and  v.  15  b 
are  reciprocally  exclusive  ;  and  of  the  two  alternative  in- 
timations, the  saying  of  Jesus  in  v.  15  is  as  certainly  cor- 
rect as  the  editorial  comment  in  v.  14  is  incorrect,  and 
therefore  appears  in  small  type.  It  is  true,  as  we  shall 
see  in  the  note  next  following,  that  the  parable  against 
judging  by  worldly  station  would  hardly  be  a  rebuke 
of  the  Pharisees  if  it  stood  alone.  It  might  almost  rep- 
resent the  very  feeling  of  the  Pharisee  himself  toward 
his  great  antagonist,  the  rich  and  worldly  Sadducee. 
But  we  have  reason  to  think  it  did  not  stand  alone,  but 
side  by  side  with  one  as  exactly  fitted  to  v.  15  a  as  this 
to  15  b.  And  the  full  significance  of  both  appears  when 
we  bring  in,  as  we  have  done,  Lk.  12:  47-48  in  place  of 
16 :  13.  For  now  the  reason  for  the  scoffing  of  the  Phari- 
sees, so  incomprehensible  before,  becomes  apparent.  The 
Pharisee's  confidence  was  far  from  being  in  his  riches  — 
rather  the  contrary  —  but  in  the  fact  of  his  "knowing  his 
Lord's  will."  The  scoffs  were  provoked  by  the  threat  of 
"  many  stripes  "  for  the  servant  who  "  knew  his  lord's  will 
and  did  it  not,"  as  compared  with  the  few  stripes  of  the 


Appendix  C  199 

men  is  exalted  is  an  abomination  in  the 
sight  of  God.* 

am  haarelz  in  his  ignorance  of  the  law.  The  real  issue 
accordingly  was  broader  than  merely  the  superiority  of 
the  divine  judgment  to  worldly  conditions  of  wealth  vs. 
poverty :  this  only  led  up  to  the  more  fundamental  prin- 
ciple as  stated  in  v.  15  and  exemplified  in  the  second  par- 
able, wherein  the  divine  judgment  is  also  shown  to  be 
superior  to  worldly  (Pharisaic)  estimates  of  moral  worth. 
*  The  very  phraseology  of  18:  9-14,  a  parable  said  to 
have  been  uttered  "against  certain  who  esteemed  them- 
selves to  be  righteous  and  despised  others,"  but  without 
any  indication  whatever  of  the  occasion  or  provocation, 
is  enough  to  show  that  it  must  have  followed  originally 
upon  16:  15.  The  very  verb  diKawOv,  common  to  16:  15 
and  18:  14  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  gospels  in  this 
sense  save  Mt.  12 :  37,  and,  as  we  have  seen  (see  preced- 
ing note),  the  context  as  imperatively  demands  teaching 
against  this  self-exaltation  of  the  Pharisees.  As  the 
parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  shows  how  God 
"  looks  not  upon  the  outward  man,  but  upon  the  heart  " 
in  the  case  of  worldly  station,  so  its  companion,  the  par- 
able of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  applies  the  same 
principle  to  Pharisaic  self-esteem.  The  rtvh  of  18:9 
had  of  course  to  be  substituted  for  an  original  rods,  or 
irpbs  avTovs  81c.  rb  weiroid.,  or  the  like,  when  the  parable 
lost  its  original  connection  with  16:  14-15.  That  which 
now  follows  at  this  point,  16:  16-18,  is  clearly  remote 
from  the  subject  and  easily  demonstrated  to  belong  in  a 
different  context  (cf.  Mt.  11 :  12-13;  5  :  x8.  32,  and  see 
Appendix  A  (6)). 


200  Appendix  C 

Parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  the  Beggar :  Jesus 
teaches  the  Worthlessness  of  Human  Stand- 
ards of  Respect 

Lk.  16  :  19-25  [26-31] 

Lk.  16  19Now  there  was  a  certain  rich  man, 
who  was  robed  in  purple  and  fine  linen, 
and  lived  in  splendid  luxury  every  day. 
20  And  a  certain  pauper  named  Lazarus*  lay 
at  his  gateway,  a  a  mass  of  ulcers,  and  fain 
to  eat  the  remnants  from  the  rich  man's 
table  ;  the  very  dogs  would  come  and  lick 
his  ulcers.  "In  course  of  time  the  pauper 
died,  and  he  was  borne  by  the  angels  into 
the  bosom  of  Abraham.  And  the  rich 
man  also  died,  and  was  entombed.  23And 
in  the  underworld  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  for 
he  was  one  that  was  in  torment,  and  sees 
afar  off  Abraham,  and  Lazarus  in  his  bosom. 

24  And  calling  aloud  he  said,  Father  Abra- 
ham, pity  me,  and  send  Lazarus  to  dip  but 
the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water  and  cool  my 
tongue,   for  I  am  in  agony  in   this  flame. 

25  But  Abraham  said,  My  son,  remember 
that  thou  didst  receive  thy  good  things  to 

«  Lk.  6:24;  the  full,"  and  in  like  manner  Lazarus  his 

Mt.6:2,5,i6.  evjj  things;  but  now  he  is  comforted  here, 

*  I.e.  Gotthelf —  God  help. 


Appendix  C  201 

whereas  thou  art  tormented.  26  And  besides 
all  this  a  great  chasm  has  been  fixed  between  us  and 
you,  so  that  those  who  might  wish  to  cross  hence 
unto  you  are  not  able,  nor  can  any  cross  from 
thence  unto  us.  27And  he  said,  I  entreat  thee, 
father,  to  send  him  to  my  father's  house — 28for  I 
have  live  brothers  —  that  he  may  bear  witness  to 
them,  that  they  also  may  not  come  into  this  place 
of  torment.  2y  But  Abraham  saith,  They  have 
Moses  and  the  prophets  ;  let  them  listen  to  them. 
80  But  he  said,  Nay,  father  Abraham,  but  if  someone 
should  go  to  them  from  the  dead  they  would  re- 
pent. 31  But  he  answered  him,  If  they  harken  not 
to  Moses  and  the  prophets,  they  would  not  yield 
were  one  even  to  rise  from  the  dead.* 

Parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican  :  Jesus 
teaches  who  has  Righteousness  in  God's  Sight 

Lk.  18  =9-14  (duplicate  of  v.  14  in  Lk.  14:  11)  =  Mt. 
23  :  12 

Lk.  18  9And  he  spake  this  parable  against 
such  as  put  trust  in  themselves  that  they  were 
righteous  and  despised  others  :  — 

*  The  addition,  ver.  26-31,  introduces  a  theme  alien 
to  the  parable.  Moreover  it  is  borrowed  from  current 
apocalyptic  expectation,  which  taught  that  Moses  and 
Elias  (sometimes  Enoch  and  Klias,  or  Elias  alone,  Rev. 
11  :  3-12  ;  Mk.  9:  1 1— 13)  would  rise  from  the  dead  to 
"witness"  for  Messiah,  and  turn  Israel  to  him  in  re- 
pentance. See  the  article  in  the  Am.  Journ.  of  Theol. 
above  referred  to  (Appendix  A,  p.  155). 


202  Appendix  C 

10 Two  men  went  up  into  the  temple  to  pray, 
the  one  a  Pharisee  and  the  other  a  Publi- 
can. "The  Pharisee  stood  and  prayed 
after  this  style  :  O  God,  I  thank  thee  that 
I  am  not  like  the  rest  of  men,  plunderers, 
dishonest,  adulterers,  or  even  like  this  Pub- 
lican. V11  fast  two  days  in  the  week.  I 
pay  tithes  on  every  article  I  possess.  1;The 
Publican,  standing  afar  off,  would  not  so 
much  as  lift  up  his  eyes  to  heaven,  but  beat 
upon  his  breast,  saying,  O  God,  be  merciful 
to  me,  sinner  that  I  am.  14I  tell  you  this 
man  went  to  his  home  blessed  with  right- 
eousness rather  than  the  other. 

For  he  that  exalteth  himself  shall  be  hum- 
bled, 

but  he  that  humbleth  himself  shall  be  ex- 
alted. 

III.  First  Discourse  of  the  Crisis  and  Re- 
jection in  Galilee.*  Jesus  defends  his 
Mission  against  the  Covert  Slander  of  the 
Scribes  who  came  down  from  Jerusalem 

Occasion 
After  feeding  a  multitude   in  the  wilderness 
Jesus  heals  the  dumb  and  blind,  evoking  Mes- 

*  The  greater  discourses  of  the  period  of  Galilean  ac- 
tivity, such  as  the  Parables  of  the  Kingdom,  Mt.  13 :  1-52, 


Appendix  C  203 

sianistic    acclamation,    Mk.    8 :  i-io,    22b-26; 

7  :  32-37=Mt.  15  :  (29-31)  32-39  J  9  :  27-34  = 

do  not  appear  to  have  been   drawn  upon  by  our  first 
evangelist  for  the  filling  up  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
One  saying,  Mt.  7 :  6,  appears  indeed  to  be  more  likely 
to  have  been  uttered  in  connection  with  the  discourse  to 
the  Twelve  when  sent  to  preach  in  Galilee,  Mt.  9 :  35- 
10:  1  =  Mk.    6:  6  -7  =  Lk.  9:  1-2   {duplicate  10 :  1-2); 
Mt.  10:5-8;   Mt.  10:9-11  =  Mk.  6:  8-10  =  Lk.  9:  3-4 
{duplicate  10:4*);    Mt.  10:  12-13  =  Lk.  lO:4b-6;    Mt. 
10:  14-15  =  Lk.    10:  10-12    {duplicate    Lk.  9:5  =  Mk- 
6:  11);    Mk.  6:12  =  Lk.  9:6.      It   might   have   been 
uttered  after  Mt.  10:  12-13  =  Lk.  io:4h-6  with  greater 
probability  than  on  occasion  of  Mt.  16:  20,  as  proposed 
by  O.  Holtzmann  (Leben  Jesu,  p.  258).     But  the  logion 
was  doubtless  taken  up  by  the  evangelist  from  floating 
tradition,  and  the  attempt  to  fix  on  its  original  context  is 
altogether  too  precarious.     The  case  is  different  with  the 
great  discourse  of  Jesus'  conflict  in  Capernaum  with  the 
religious  authorities,  provoked  by  their  blasphemous  ex- 
planation of  his  miracles.     As  to  this,  the  principal  diffi- 
culties come  rather  from  the  multitude  of  independent 
reports.     It  is  quite  clear,  however,  from  the  main  ac- 
counts in  Lk.  11:  14-12:  1  =  Mt.  12:  22-50  that  we  have 
two  principal  discourses  to  distinguish,  (1)  that  of  the 
morning,  when,  arriving  home  from  the  scene  of  cul- 
mination of  his  popularity,  Jesus  finds  the  scribes  from 
Jerusalem  in  possession  of  the  field,  and  himself  put  upon 
the  defensive  by  the  slander  covertly  (Mt.  12:  25  =  Lk. 
n:  17)  set  in  circulation  by  them,  "He  exorciseth  by 
Beelzebub."     The  discourse  of  the  morning  is  accord- 


204  Appendix  C 

John  9  :  1-6  ;  10  :  19-20  {duplicate  Mk.  6  :  30- 
56  =  Mt.  14  :  13-36  =  Lk.  9  :  10-17  =  John 
6  :  1-2 1)  ;  Mt.  12  :  22-23  =  Lk.  11  :  14.  These 
murmurs  of  popular  approval  are  met  on  the 
part  of  certain  scribes  who  had  come  down  from 
Jerusalem  by  the  verdict,  He  casteth  out  devils 
by  Beelzebub,  Mk.  3:22  =  Mt.  12  :  23b-24 
(duplicate  9  :  34)  =  Lk.  11 :  15  =  John  10  :  21.* 

ingly  defensive.  But  (2)  at  the  noonday  meal,  Lk. 
11:37-41  =  Mk.  7:1-21,  the  scribes  from  Jerusalem 
and  their  Pharisaic  adherents  found  occasion  for  a  direct 
attack,  and  openly  charged  him  with  neglect  of  the  or- 
dinances of  ceremonial  cleanness.  Jesus  then  takes  up 
the  gauntlet,  publicly  renounces  ceremonialism,  and 
formally  turns  the  accusation  back  upon  his  accusers  by 
denouncing  prophetic  woes  against  Pharisees  and  scribes 
alike.  To  their  demand  of  a  sign  from  Heaven  in  au- 
thentication of  these  revolutionary  utterances  he  replies 
(3)  with  the  offer  of  the  sign  of  Jonah  and  the  Ninevites, 
Solomon  and  the  Queen  of  Sheba.  These  two  later  dis- 
courses, in  which  Jesus  takes  the  offensive,  may  there- 
fore be  more  appropriately  treated  as  separate,  although 
their  connection  with  the  first  in  both  occasion  and  con- 
tent is  intimate. 

*  As  I  have  shown  in  my  Introduction  (p.  207),  at 
least  this  portion  of  Mark  contains  duplicate  material, 
which  naturally  causes  still  further  duplication  when  it 
reappears  in  the  dependent  gospel  of  Matthew.  Luke 
is  characteristically  more  cautious  and  omits  the  more 


Appendix  C  205 

(i)    Feeding  of  the  Multitude 

Mk.   8:i-IO  =  Mt.   15:32-39  {duplicate,  Mk.  6:30-56 
=  Mt.  14:  13-36  =  Lk.  9:  10-17  =  Jn.  6:  1-21) 

Mk.  8  'In  those  days,  when  there  was  again"  a  "6:34. 
great  multitude  and  they  had  nothing  to  eat,  he 
called  his  disciples  and  saith  to  them,  2I  have 
compassion  on  the  multitude,  because  it  is  now 
three  days  that  they  have  been  staying  with  me, 
and  they  have  nothing  to  eat.     3And  if  I  send 
them  away  to  their  homes  fasting,  they  will  faint 
by  the  way;  and  some  of  them  are  come  from 
far.     4And  the  disciples  answered  him,  Whence 
could  one  supply  these  men  with  bread  here  in 
the   wilderness?      5And   he    asked   them,   How 
many  loaves  have  ye?     And  they  said,  Seven. 
6  And  he  bade  the  multitude  be  seated  on  the 
ground.     And   he   took   the   seven    loaves  and 
gave  the  thanksgiving  and  brake,  and  gave  to 
his  disciples  to  set  before  them,  and  they  set  it 

glaring  instances,  such  as  the  two  feedings  of  the  multi- 
tude and  two  collisions  with  the  scribes  from  Jerusalem, 
though  not  all  duplication  is  avoided  (Lk.  8:  19-21  = 
1 1  :  27-28).  The  fourth  gospel  is  as  usual  controlled  by 
the  third.  In  our  text  the  simpler  and  more  original  form 
is  of  course  made  the  basis.  In  Mk.  8 :  1  it  contains 
the  single  word,  irciX^,  "  again,"  from  the  editorial  pen. 


206  Appendix  C 

before  the  multitude.  7And  they  had  a  few 
little  fish,  and  he  blessed  them  and  bade  dis- 
tribute these  also.  8And  they  ate  and  were 
filled.  And  they  took  up  seven  baskets  of  frag- 
ments that  were  left  over.  9Novv  there  were 
about  four  thousand  of  them. 
«Mk.  6:45.  And  he  dismissed  them,"  10and  straightway, 
entering  into  the  boat  with  his  disciples,  came 
into  the  parts  of  Dalmanutha.* 

(2)  Healing  a  Blind  Man  by  touching  his  Eyes 
with  Spittle 

Mk.    8:22b-26  =  Mt.   9:27-31    {duplicates   in    12:22; 
20:30-34)  =  Jn.  9:  1-12 

Mk.  8  22*  *  *f  And  they  bring  unto  him  a 
» v.  32.  blind  man,6  and   entreat   him   to   touch    him.'' 

*  For  Dalmanutha  Matthew  has  Magadan.  The  places 
are  unknown,  but  either  name  designates  some  obscure 
place  on  the  shore  of  the  Gennesaret  plain,  not  far 
from  Capernaum.  The  duplicate  account  in  Mk.  6:53 
has  "came  to  land  at  Gennesaret,  and  moored  to  the 
shore."  They  had  been  driven  from  their  intended 
course  to  Bethsaida  (6 :  45)  by  a  strong  headwind  from 
the  northeast  (the  usual  direction  of  violent  winds  on  the 
lake),  and  thus  landed  probably  somewhere  along  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  plain. 

t  The  first  clause  of  Mk.  8:22  should  be  reckoned 
with  the  preceding  context.     The  healing  of  the  blind 


Appendix  C  207 

23 And  he  took  hold  of  the  blind  man  with  his 
hand  and  led  him  forth  outside  the  village,"  and   « v.  33. 
when  he  had  spat  upon  his  eyes4  and  laid  his  *v-33: 
hands  on  himc  he  asked  him  if  he  saw  anything,   e  v.  33. 
24 And  he  looked  up  and  said,  I  see  men;  for  I 

man  is  an  incident  so  thoroughly  marked  and  so  closely 
connected  with  that  of  Mk.  7  :  32-37  as  to  compel  identi- 
fication with  that  which  both  in  Mt.  9 :  27-34  and  Mt. 
12:22  is  associated  with  the  casting  out  of  the  dumb 
devil.  Why  it  was  removed  from  this  connection  in 
Mark  to  one  which  locates  it  at  Bethsaida  can  only  be 
conjectured.  That  the  location  is  incorrect  is  apparent 
from  verses  23  and  26,  where  the  locality  is  called  a 
ku)/xt),  i.e.  "village"  or  "hamlet."  Jn.  9:  1-12  locates 
this  healing  at  Jerusalem,  with  a  mystical  reference  to 
the  pool  of  Siloam  (cf.  dW<TTei\ep,  v.  25).  This  is  of 
course  still  more  incompatible  with  the  /cwyinj  of  Mark. 
That  the  incident  is  really  the  same  is  evidenced  not 
merely  by  the  remarkable  trait  of  the  use  of  spittle  (cf. 
also  Mk.  7:33),  but  (1)  by  the  altercation  with  the 
Pharisees  on  spiritual  blindness,  which  follows  in  Jn. 
9:35-41,  culminating  in  v.  41  with  the  declaration  on 
Jesus'  part  that  the  sin  of  the  Pharisees  is  eternal,  and 
(2)  by  the  calumny  on  their  part,  "  He  hath  a  devil," 
10 :  20.  On  the  authority  of  so  many  cases  where  a  heal- 
ing of  the  blind  is  connected  with  the  altercation  with 
the  Pharisees  (Mt.  9 :  27-34  ;  12:22-32;  15:30-16:1; 
Jn.  9:  1-10:  21  ;  see  also  Lk.  11  :  34-36  and  Mt.  15  :  14) 
we  venture  to  transpose  Mk.  8:  22*'-26  to  a  position  im- 
mediately before  7 :  32-37. 


208  Appendix  C 

behold  as  it  were  trees*  walking  about.  ^Then 
he  put  his  hands  again  upon  his  eyes,"  and  he 
looked  and  was  restored,  and  saw  all  things 
clearly.  26And  he  sent  him  away6  to  his  house, 
saying,  Do  not  even  enter  the  village. 

(3)  Healing  of  a  Dumb  Man,  followed  by 
Popular  Acclamation 

Mk.  7:  32-37  =  Mt.  9:  32-33  {duplicate  [Mk.  6:  53-56] 
Mt.  12  :  22-231  =  Lk.  11  :  14  =  Jn.  6  :  14) 

Mk.  7  32And  they  bring  unto  himc  one  that 
was  dumb  and  had  an  impediment  of  speech, 
dand  entreat  him  to  lay  his  hand  on  him. 
33 "And  he  took  him  aside  apart  from  the  crowd 
by  himself,  and  put  his  fingers  in  his  ears/  and 
spat  and  touched  his  tongue".  ^And  looking 
up  to  heaven  he  sighed,  and  saith  to  him, 
Ephphatha,*  that  is,  Be  opened.  ■"  And  his  ears 
were  opened  and  straightway  the  bond  of  his 
tongue  was  loosed,  and  he  spoke  rightly.     ^And 

*  The  trunk  of  a  tree  —  the  blind  do  not  consider  the 
top  —  compares  closely  in  dimensions  with  a  human 
body.  This  blind  man  realizes  that  the  moving  objects 
of  this  size  must  of  course  be  men.  Compare  the  inter- 
esting description  of  the  gradual  restoration  of  speech 
to  the  dumb  man  immediately  following. 


Appendix  C  209 

he  charged  them  to  tell  no  man.     But  the  more 

he  charged  them  the  more  exceedingly  did  they 

proclaim  the  matter."     And  people  were  aston-   »  i :  44-45. 

ished   beyond   all   measure,  saying,  ^He  hath 

done  all  things  well,  he  maketh  even  the  deaf  to 

hear  and  the  dumb  to  speak.6  *  &  Mt.  9:33; 

12 :  23 ; 
*  The  identification  of  the  two  healings  of  the  blind    1^:30-31; 

and  dumb  in  the  two  passages  of  Mark  above  given,  with  Lk.  ll  '■  z4> 
the  casting  out  of  a  "dumb  devil"  in  Lk.  II:  14,  the  •»•**+■ 
healing  of  two  blind  and  one  dumb  in  Mt.  9 :  27-33,  and 
of  one  "blind  and  dumb"  in  Mt.  12:  23,  may  seem  to 
require  more  than  has  thus  far  been  adduced  to  justify 
it ;  especially  if  we  proceed  so  far  as  to  make  the  heal- 
ing of  the  blind  in  Jn.  9:  1-10:  21  refer  to  the  same. 

One  of  the  principal  notes  of  identity  is  the  special 
notice  of  the  amazement  of  the  multitude  which  in  this 
case  is  carried  to  the  highest  pitch  of  all  the  Markan 
narratives  (cf.  2:12;  5:42);  not  of  course  that  the 
miracle  is  more  surprising  than  the  raising  of  Jairus' 
daughter,  but  that  the  evangelist  would  describe  it  as 
the  actual  culmination  of  popular  wonder  which  precipi- 
tated a  momentous  conflict.  For,  to  take  up  at  once  a 
second  and  third  note  of  identity,  the  narrative  proceeds 
to  relate  (2)  the  Feeding  of  the  Multitude,  and  the 
effort  of  the  Pharisees  to  counteract  Jesus'  popularity  by 
attributing  his  miracles  to  Satan  (a  trait  wanting  in  Mk. 
8:  11),  and  (3)  demanding  a  sign  from  Heaven.  In 
like  manner  Lk.  11:14,  Mt.  9:32,  and  Mt.  12:24, 
which  add  the  blasphemy  of  the  Pharisees,  all  proceed 
from  the  amazement  of  the  multitude  to  the  demand  of  a 
P 


210  Appendix  C 

(4)  Messianistic  Acclamation  met  by  the  Scribes 
from  Jerusalem  :  'He  caste th  out  by  Beelzebub ' 

Mt.  l2:23b-24  {duplicate  9:34)  =  Mk.  3:22  =  Lk.  II:  15 
=  Jn.  10: 20 

Mt.  12  ^And  they  said,  Can  this  be 
the    Son    of   David?     24But   when   the   Phari- 

sign  from  Heaven,  Mt.  12 :  23  f.  giving  the  distinctively 
Messianist  character  to  the  acclamation  that  the  people 
said,  "  Is  not  this  the  Son  of  David."  Now  the  only  oc- 
casion of  this  kind  we  know  of,  an  occasion  which  in  its 
public  features  could  hardly  be  repeated,  is  related  in 
Jn.  6:  14-15,  where  again  it  leads  to  the  demand  of  a 
sign  from  Heaven  (v.  30-33),  here  also  following  upon 
the  feeding  of  the  multitude,  yet  not  because  of  it,  but 
because  "  the  people  saw  the  signs  (true  reading,  cf.  v.  2) 
which  he  did."  This  identification  is  clinched  by  the 
duplication  of  Mt.  12:38-39  in  Mt.  16:  1-5  =  Mk. 
8:  II-13.  A  fourth  note  of  identity  appears  in  the  next 
succeeding  item,  a  discourse  of  Jesus  warning  against 
the  teaching  of  the  Pharisees  under  the  figure  of  bread, 
which  is  followed  by  the  withdrawal  to  Ccesarea  Philippi 
and  Confession  of  Peter,  Mk.  8  :  14-22",  27-30  =  Mt. 
16:5-12,  13-16.  Of  this  Luke  has  but  the  brief  state- 
ment 12:1,  but  John  expands  into  the  great  discourse 
on  the  true  Bread  from  Heaven  with  a  curiously  variant 
version  of  the  Petrine  Confession,  6  :  22-65,  66-71. 

If  these  incidents  be  studied  in  their  interrelation  as  a 
group,  of  which  sometimes  two  or  three,  sometimes  more, 
are  always  found  together,  the  portions  of  Mark  omitted 
by  Luke,  but  which  appear  in  Matthew,  and  by  their  ap- 


Appendix  C  211 

sees*  heard  it,  they  said,  this  man  only  casteth 
out  devils  by  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of  the  devils. 

pearance  give  rise  to  the  remarkable  doublets  of  that 
gospel,  such  as  12:  38-39  =  16:  1-5,  will  appear  in  their 
true  light.  Mk.  8 :  22b-26  (displaced  as  shown  above, 
p.  206  note  t)>  7:  32-37  are  the  two  specific  healings  of 
the  blind  and  dumb,  related  in  all  the  pristine  freshness 
and  graphic  detail  of  the  Markan  source,  which  in  the 
later  accounts  are  more  vaguely  spoken  of  as  healings  of 
two  blind  men  and  a  dumb  man  (Mt.  9:  27-33 — Note 
that  the  popular  cry,  "  Is  not  this  the  Son  of  David,"  of 
Mt.  12:  23,  is  here  placed  in  the  mouth  of  the  healed 
blind  men  with  further  assimilation  to  the  Bartimxus 
episode,  Mt.  20 :  30-34  =  Mk.  10:46-52),  "one  pos- 
sessed with  a  devil,  blind  and  dumb"  (Mt.  12:22),  a 
"dumb  devil"  (Lk.  ii:  14  —  Note,  however,  the  con- 
nected saying  on  spiritual  blindness,  vv.  34-36),  "a  man 
blind  from  birth  "  (Jn.  9:  i-io:  21),  and  "signs  done  on 
them  that  were  sick"  (Jn.  6:  2).  Everywhere  the  dis- 
tinctive feature  of  these  particular  healings  (or  at  least 
of  one  of  the  two)  is  that  they  precipitated  the  great 
crisis  when  the  Pharisees  on  their  part  blasphemed 
Jesus  as  possessed  of  an  unclean  spirit,  took  him  openly 
to  task  as  "a  sinner"  (Mk.  7:i-24  =  Mt.  15:1-20), 
and  demanded  a  sign  from  Heaven,  Jesus  replying  by  a 
true  Philippic  against  the  Pharisees.  If  this  fact  receive 
adequate  consideration,  it  will  at  once  appear  why  we 
further  include  in  our  identification  Jn.  9:  1-10:21  ;  cf. 
9:  24,  40-41  ;    10:  20  with  Mt.  12  :  24,  32. 

*  Mark  :  "  the  scribes  who  had  come  down  from  Jeru- 
salem," cf.  7 :  1. 


212  Appendix  C 

Jesus1  Defence 

Mt.  12:25-32  (34,  36-37?)=  Lk.  11:17-23;   12:10  = 

Mk.  3  :  23-30  * 

(1)  Is  Satan's  Kingdom  divided? 

Mt.  12:  25-26  =  Mk.  3:  23-26  =  Lk.  11  :  17-18 

Mt.  12  25And  when  he  perceived  their  thoughts 
he  said  unto  them  :  — ■ 

Every  kingdom  divided  against  itself  be- 

cometh  desolate 
and  every  city  or  household  divided  against 

itself  is  overthrown. 

*  In  my  Introduction,  p.  209,  I  have  endeavored  to 
show  that  the  sparing  use  of  the  Login  in  Mark  is  not 
due  to  lack  of  acquaintance  on  the  part  of  our  second 
evangelist  with  that  primitive  compilation,  instancing 
Mk.  1 :  15  as  affected  by  Lk.  4 :  21  (cf.  6 :  1-6) ;  1 :  24  by 
Mt.  8 :  29,  from  which  Mark  deduces  the  general  theory 
1 :  34;  3 :  11  f.,  and  giving  as  examples  of  displaced  Logia 
fragments  in  Mark,  2  :  28;  4 :  22,  24b;  8 :  34  f.,  38s;  9 :  37, 
41-50;  10:  11,  15,  38",  39b;  11:22-25;  I2:38b,  39; 
13  :9-!3>  21-23,  33-375  !4=  25  (?)■  To  these  must  be 
added  3:  22-30,  an  extract  —  to  judge  from  its  less  com- 
plete form  and  anachronistic  position  —  from  the  source 
employed  in  Mt.  12:22-32  {duplicate  in  9:32-34)  = 
Lk.  11 :  14-22;  12:  10.  In  Mark  its  position  is  prema- 
ture (see  B.  Weiss,  Markusevang.,  ad  loc),  as  appears 
from  the  reference  to  the  delegation  from  Jerusalem 
(7 :  1-2)  in  v.  22,  and  in  v.  23  to  the  parabolic  teaching 
to  which  we  are  first  introduced  in  4:2.     It  appears  to 


Appendix  C  213 

26  And  if  Satan  is  casting  out  Satan  he  is  di- 
vided against  himself; 
how  then  shall  his  kingdom  stand? 

be  inserted  at  this  point  in  the  narrative  to  palliate  the 
sin  of  Jesus'  mother  and  brethren,  who  came  to  lay  hands 
on  Jesus,  saying,  "  he  is  beside  himself,"  a  venial  offence 
of  ignorance,  by  contrasting  the  "  sin  which  hath  never 
forgiveness  "  of  "  the  scribes  from  Jerusalem."  But  it  is 
the  more  inappropriate  to  a  chronological  narrative  at 
this  point  because  the  incident  of  the  mother  and  breth- 
ren is  itself  already  an  unchronological  appendix  to  the 
section  on  the  choosing  of  the  Twelve,  3 :  7-1 5%  which  has 
first  been  supplemented  by  a  list  of  the  twelve  names, 
very  awkwardly  attached,  next  by  the  incident  of  the 
mother  and  brethren,  doubtless  for  the  sake  of  the  saying 
3  :  34~35>  on  tne  disciples  as  spiritual  brethren  who  take 
the  place  of  earthly  kin,  and  finally  by  the  contrasted  inci- 
dent of  the  blasphemy  of  the  scribes,  3 :  22-30.  At  what 
period  in  the  unknown  history  of  our  second  gospel  this 
intercalation  was  made  is  a  difficult  problem,  but  certainly 
before  it  was  utilized  by  either  Matthew  or  Luke,  since 
both  show  its  effect  (cf.  Mt.  12:46-50;    Lk.  8:  19-21). 

It  is  not  improbable  that  the  series  of  events  related 
in  Mk.  8:22b-26;  7:32-37;  8:  1-10,  11-13,  14-21,  since 
it  is  so  closely  paralleled  by  6  :  30-56;  7:  1-31,  27-33, 
and  in  the  other  gospels,  may  have  once  included  the 
substance  of  3:  22-30  between  8:  10  and  11.  As  it  is, 
Mk.  3 :  22-30  is  simply  a  third  form  of  the  Logian  ver- 
sion more  fully  given  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  The 
Markan  tradition  only  conies  in  independently  for  the 
later  discourses  of  the  day. 


214  Appendix  C 

(2)   By  Whom  do  your  Sons  exorcise  ? 
Mt.  12:  27-28  =  Lk.  11 :  19-20 

27  And  if  I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  demons 
by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out ; 
[therefore  let  them  be  your  judges?] 

28  But  if  I  by  the  Spirit  of  God  cast  out  demons 
then  has  the  kingdom  of  God  come  unto 

you. 

(3)    Taking  the  Spoil  of  the  Strong  Man  armed 
Mt.  12:  29  =  Mk.  3:  27  =  Lk.  11 :  21-22 

29  Or  how  can  one  enter  a  strong  man's  house 
and  carry  off  his  possessions, 

unless  first  he  have  bound  the  strong  man, 
and  then  he  will  carry  off  his  household  as 
spoil. 

(4)  Decide  for  Friendship  or  Enmity 

Mt.  12:  30  =  Lk.  II  :  23 

30  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me ; 

and  he  that  gathereth  not  with  me  scattereth. 

(5)   Blasphemy  of  God's  Spirit  an  Abiding  Sin 

Mt.  12  :  31-32  =  Mk.  3  :  28-30  =  Lk.  12 :  10  = 

Jn.  9:39-41 

31  Therefore  I  declare  unto  you, 

All  (other)  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  for- 
given unto  men 


Appendix  C  215 

but  blasphemy  of  the  Spirit  shall  not  be  for- 
given. 
32  And  whoso  speaketh  a  word  against  the  Son 
of  Man 

it  shall  be  forgiven  him  ; 

but  whoso  speaketh  against  the  Holy  Spirit, 

it  shall  neither  be  forgiven  him  in  this  world, 
nor  in  that  which  is  to  come. 

33*  *  *  *  *  *  ** 

(6)    The  Evil  Word  shall  bring  into  Judgment 

Mt.  12:34,  36-37 

34  Ye  brood  of  vipers,  how  can  ye,  evil  as  ye 
are,  speak  good  things? 
For  out  of  the  overflowing  of  the  heart  the 

mouth  speaketh 

35*  *  *         *  *  *  *  + 

36  But  I  tell  you  that  for  every  idle  word  that 
men  speak 

*  Verses  33  ("  Make  the  tree  good  or  evil ")  and  35 
(The  good  man  bringing  forth  good)  are  duplicates  of 
Mt.  7:10  =  Lk.  6 :  43  and  of  Lk.  6 :  45s  respectively. 
See  Appendix  A  (10),  p.  1 61-166,  and  compare  Luke. 
Their  true  place  appears  to  be  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

f  See  the  preceding  note.  These  added  logia  of  Mat- 
thew 12:  33-37  which  do  not  appear  in  the  parallels  are 
of  decidedly  doubtful  originality  in  the  connection,  espe- 
cially as  they  partake  largely  of  the  nature  of  current 
maxims  and  show  affinity  with  foreign  material  (with 
341  cf.  Mt.  3:7). 


216  Appendix  C 

they  shall  render  account  in  the  day  of 
judgment. 
37  For  by  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justified 
and  by  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  condemned. 

IV.  Second  Discourse  of  the  Crisis  and 
Rejection  in  Galilee.  Jesus  is  taken  to 
Task  for  Disregard  of  the  Traditions,  and 
openly  breaks  with  Scribes  and  Pharisees 

Occasion 
At  the  midday  meal  in  a  Pharisee's  house  Jesus 
and  his  disciples  provoke  attack  by  neglecting 
the  ablutions. 

Lk.  II :  37-38  =  Mk.  7:1-5=  Mt.  15  :  1-2 

Lk.  11  37  Now  as  he  was  speaking  a  Phari- 
see asked  him  to  take  lunch  at  his  house. 
Mk.  7  'And  the  Pharisees  gathered  unto  him, 
and  certain  scribes  which  had  come  from  Jeru- 
salem.*    2And  seeing  certain  disciples  of  his  to 

*  This  delegation  of  scribes  from  Jerusalem  was  a 
matter  of  no  small  importance.  It  is  indeed  only  Mark 
who  appreciates  this,  these  scribes  in  Matthew  and  Luke 
being  either  altogether  lost  to  sight  behind  the  habitual 
antagonists  of  Jesus,  the  Pharisees,  as  in  Mt.  9:34; 
12:  24;  Lk.  11  :  15,  or  losing  their  identity  in  the  more 
general  expression  of  Mt.  15:1,  "scribes  and  Pharisees" 


Appendix  C  217 

be  eating  bread  with  common,  that  is  unwashed 
hands  — 3  for  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews  will 

(cf.  23:  2,  13,  15) ;  but  the  overwhelming  effect  of  their 
authoritative  verdict  on  Jesus'  following  shows  their  im- 
portance. It  was  a  particular  visit  to  Galilee  of  certain 
great  Jerusalem  authorities,  and  the  attributing  of  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  to  collusion  with  Satan  was  surely  their 
work,  as  Mark  declares  (3:22),  although,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  separation  of  3 :  22-30  from  7  :  1-24  is  certainly 
unchronological.  As  Mk.  7 :  I  is  clearly  the  first  men- 
tion of  this  delegation,  and  there  are  no  traces  of  3 :  22- 
30  having  been  removed  from  chapter  7,  it  is  probable 
that  this  account  (Mk.  6:30-7:31;  8:34-35;  9:2-10), 
which  passes  directly  from  the  Feeding  of  the  Multitude 
(5000)  and  Walking  on  the  Sea  to  the  controversy  on 
Neglect  of  the  Ablutions,  with  only  a  general  reference 
to  the  Miracles  of  Healing  (Matthew,  however,  empha- 
sizing in  particular  "the  blind  and  the  dumb"),  thence 
to  the  Exile  and  Revelation  of  Peter,  and  is  paralleled 
by  Mt.  14:  13-15:29/;  10:32,33,39;  17:  1-13,  had  no 
account  of  the  discourse  of  the  morning.  It  is  clearly  a 
Markan  source  of  Petrine  type,  but  may  perhaps  have 
been  known  to  Matthew  in  independent  form,  since  the 
Matthsean  version  adds  important  and  sometimes  appar- 
ently original  traits  (Mt.  14:  28-31;  15:  12-15,  23~2S)- 
Luke's  cancellations  may  perhaps  be  similarly  accounted 
for.  But  this  account  of  the  Crisis  in  Galilee  is  not  the 
only  one  employed  by  Mark,  nor  indeed  would  it  seem 
the  more  original.  Let  it  be  designated  Mark  B,  and 
alongside  it  we  shall  have  Mark  A,  i.e.  8  :  22b-26;  7 :  32- 
37;   8:  1-22",  27-38;  9:  1,  n-13,  a  narrative  which  re- 


218  Appendix  C 

not  eat  unless  they  have  punctiliously  (  ?)  washed 
their  hands,  in  observance  of  the  tradition  of  the 
elders ;  4  and  when  they  come  from  the  market- 
place they  will  not  eat  without  washing,  and 
they  have  many  other  traditional  observances, 
washings  of  cups  and  pans  and  kettles  —  5and 
the  Pharisees  and  scribes  ask  him,  Why  do  not 
thy  disciples  walk  according  to  the  tradition  of 
the  elders,  but  eat  bread  with  unwashed  hands? 

Jesus'  Reply  and  Counter-Accusation 

(i)    The  True  Purification  of  Meats 
Lk.  II :  39-41  =  Mt.  23 :  25-26 
Lk.  1139  And  the  Lord  said  unto  him  *  :  — 
Now  do  ye  Pharisees  purify  the  outside  of 
cup  and  platter,  but  the  inside  of  you  t  is 

latcs  in  more  specific  form  the  Healings  of  the  Blind  and 
Dumb,  then  the  Feeding  of  the  Multitude  (4000),  com- 
ing to  Gennesaret  and  Conflict  with  the  Pharisees,  then 
the  Flight  and  Exile  and  Revelation  of  Peter,  but  dwells 
upon  other  features.  Both  A  and  B  have  passed  over 
into  Matthew,  practically  without  cancellation,  but  Luke 
and  John  exercise  discrimination  in  different  ways,  by  se- 
lection and  cancellation  of  the  more  obvious  duplicates. 

*  According  to  Luke  it  was  the  particular  Pharisee 
who  was  Jesus'  host  that  put  the  question. 

t  Text  "  of  you."  This  is  a  manifest  misunderstanding 
(occasioned    perhaps  by   v.  4^).     It    is    the  dishes    (so 


Appendix  C  219 

full  of  robbery  and  extortion.  ^  Simple- 
tons, did  not  he  who  made  the  outside 
make  the  inside  as  well?  ^But  give  the 
contents  for  alms,  and  lo,  all  things  are 
purified  for  you. 

(2)   The   Ordinances  of  the  Scribes  nullify  the 
Word  of  God 

Mk.  7  :  6-13  =  Mt.  15  :  3-9 

Mk.  7  6But  he  said  unto  them  :  — 

Well  did  Isaiah  prophesy  regarding  you 
hypocrites,  as  it  is  written,  "  This  people 
honoreth  me  with  their  lips,  but  their  heart 
is  far  from  me.  7  But  in  vain  do  they  wor- 
ship me,  teaching  as  their  doctrines  the 
ordinances  of  men."  8Ye  forsake  the  com- 
mandment of  God,  and  hold  to  the  tradi- 
tion of  men. 

Matthew)  which  contain  the  robbery  and  wickedness 
(Matthew,  "extortion"),  not  the  men;  for  the  Semitic 
idiom  substitutes  the  abstract  for  the  concrete,  as  in  Am. 
3 :  10,  princes  "  who  store  up  violence  ami  robbery,"  i.e. 
the  fruits  of  violence  and  robbery,  in  their  palaces.  To 
really  purify  this  food  the  contents  should  be  restored  to 
the  poor  in  alms,  as  was  done  by  Zacchaeus,  Lk.  19:8; 
then  what  remained  might  be  counted  "  pure."  This  is 
a  spiritualizing  application  of  the  ceremonial  law  charac- 
teristic not  only  of  Jesus,  but  of  the  broader  piety  of  men 
of  his  class  in  this  age  (cf.  Mk.  12:  32). 


220  Appendix  C 

9  And  he  said  unto  them  :  — 
Full  well  do  ye  make  void  the  command- 
ment of  God  that  ye  may  keep  your  own 
tradition.  10  For  Moses  said,  "  Honor  thy 
father  and  thy  mother,"  and,  "  He  that 
slandereth  father  or  mother,  let  him  surely 
be  put  to  death."  "But  ye  say  :  If  a  man 
say  to  father  or  mother,  Whatever  income 
you  might  have  from  my  wages  is  korban, 
that  is,  dedicated  to  the  temple  treasury, 
12  you  do  not  allow  him  to  do  any  more 
work  for  his  father  or  his  mother,  13thus 
nullifying  the  word  of  God  by  your  tradi- 
tion which  ye  have  handed  down.  And 
there  are  many  like  things  which  ye  do. 

(3)  J^sus   sweeps    away    All  Distinctions    of 
Meats 
Mk.  7 :  14-23  =  Mt.  15  :  10-20 
Mk.  7  "And  he  called  up  again  the  multitude 
and  said  to  them  :  — 

16  Hear  me  all  of  you  and  understand. 
There  is  nothing  from  outside  a  man  that 
by  passing  into  him  can  make  him  '  im- 
pure ' ;  but  it  is  the  things  that  are  from 
within  a  man  that  make  the  man  '  impure.' 

17  Now  when  he  had    come  into   the    house, 
away   from   the   multitude,  his   disciples   asked 


Appendix  C  221 

him  the  meaning  of  the  parable.  18And  he  saith 
to  them,  "Are  you  also  such  simpletons?"  Do  ■  Lk.  11:40. 
you  not  perceive  that  nothing  that  enters  into 
a  man  from  without  can  make  him  impure? 
19  Because  it  does  not  penetrate  to  his  soul,  but 
goes  into  his  belly  and  is  thrown  off  into  the 
drain."  He  thus  pronounced  all  kinds  of  food 
to  be  '  pure.'  And  he  went  on  to  say,  "  What 
makes  the  man  impure  is  that  which  issues  from 
him.  21  For  it  is  from  within,  out  of  men's  souls 
that  come  forth  malicious  designs,  fornication, 
theft,  murder,  s  adultery,  concupiscence,  wicked- 
ness, fraud,  licentiousness,  an  evil  eye,6  bias-  *  Lk.  11:34. 
phemy,0  arrogance,  folly.  ^All  these  wicked  <  Mk.  3:22. 
things  come  forth  from  within,  and  these  make 
the  man  impure.  "  * 

*  The  explanation  of  the  parable  is  introduced  out  of 
chronological  order  precisely  as  in  Mk.  4:  10-13,  and 
with  just  the  same  formula.  In  fact  later  private  ex- 
planation appears  to  be  a  special  device  of  Mark  (cf. 
9:33;  10:  10;  11:20).  Accordingly  our  typographi- 
cal system  requires  that  this  portion  be  printed  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  evangelist's  explanations  and 
comments,  although  it  embodies  words  of  Jesus,  perhaps 
even  an  allusion  (v.  22b)  to  the  blasphemy  of  the  scribes. 
But  the  principal  discourse  must  be  supposed  to  be  re- 
sumed thereafter  independently  of  the  aside. 


222  Appendix  C 

(4)  Jesus    denounces    Three    Woes    upon    the 
Pharisees 

Lk.  1 1 :  42-44  =  Mt.  23 :  23,  6-7  ,  27-28  * 

(i)   "Woe  to  you  Pharisees 

because  you  pay  tithes  on  mint  and 

rue  and  every  garden  herb 
and  pass  by  justice  and  the  love  of  God. 
These  ye  should  have  done,  while  ye 

left  not  those  undone. 

(ii)  43Woe  to  you  Pharisees 

because  you  love  the  place  of  honor  in 

the  synagogues 
and  salutations  in  the  market  places. 

(iii)  44Woe  to  you 

because  you  are  like  unmarked  tombs  f 
and  men  that  pass  over  them  know  it 
not. 

*  Matthew  incorrectly  combines  this  Denunciation 
uttered  to  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  with  a  much  later 
discourse  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  in  which  he  warns 
them  against  the  spirit  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  Mk. 
12  :  38%  40  =  Mt.  23  :  1-3  =  Lk.  20 :  45-47.  It  is  with 
this  latter  that  we  should  probably  connect  the  fragment 
from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  on  How  to  Discriminate 
between  True  and  False  Teachers,  Mt.  7:  I5~i6[20?j  = 
Lk.  6:  44.     See  Appendix  A  (10),  p.  163. 

t  There  seems  to  be  a  curious  discrepancy  in  our  two 
reports  of  this  saying.     Both  Mt.  23  :  27  and  Lk.  1 1 :  44 


Appendix  C  223 

(5)  He  turns  his  Threefold  Invective  upon  the 
Scribes  as  well 

Lk.  11 :  45-47[48-5i]  =  Mt.  23:4,  29-32,  14 
Lk.  11  ^And   one  of  the  scribes  answered 
him  and  saith,  Teacher,  in  saying  these  things 
thou  art  insulting  even  us.     **  But  he  said  :  — 

(i)      Woe  unto  you  scribes  also ; 

because  ye  lade  men  with  burdens 
heavy  to  bear 

and  yourselves  will  not  touch  the  bur- 
dens with  one  of  your  fingers. 

(ii)  47  Woe  unto  you 

because  you  build  up  tombs  for  the 
prophets 

compare  the  Pharisees  to  the  sepulchres,  and  allude  to 
the  custom  of  whitewashing  them  that  the  passer-by 
might  not  unwittingly  be  ceremonially  contaminated. 
But  in  Matthew  it  is  the  whitcd  sepulchre  to  which  the 
Pharisee  is  compared,  as  "outwardly  beautiful"  (?)  but 
inwardly  loathsome  ;  to  which  it  may  well  be  objected 
that  the  object  of  the  whitewashing  was  just  the  reverse 
of  making  them  appear  beautiful.  In  Luke  it  is  the  ««- 
whited  sepulchre,  by  which  the  unwary  are  defiled  with- 
out knowing  it.  This  paradoxical  arraignment  of  the 
professional  "  Puritan  "  of  the  day  as  a  really  defiling  in- 
fluence is  perhaps  not  too  strong  to  be  genuine,  and  on 
the  whole  preferable  to  the  Matthsean  form. 


224  Appendix  C 

and   your   own    fathers    put    them    to 
death. 

48  So  you  are  witnesses  for  and  give  consent  to 
the  works  of  your  fathers,  because  they 
killed  them  and  you  build  their  tombs. 
49 On  account  of  this  "The  Wisdom  of 
God  "  also  saith  :  — 

Mt.  23  ^  Behold,  I  send  unto  you  prophets  and 

wise  men  and  scribes. 
Some  of  them  ye  will  kill  and  crucify 
and  some  of  them  ye  will  scourge  in 

your  synagogues 
and  persecute  from  city  to  city. 
86  That  all  the  righteous  blood  shed  upon 

the  earth 
may  come  on  your  heads, 
from  the  blood  of  Abel  the  just 
to  the  blood  of  Zacharias  son  of  Bara- 

chias 
whom  ye  slew  between  the  temple  and 

the  altar. 
86  Of  a  truth  I  tell  you, 
All  these  things  shall  come  upon  this 

generation. 

87Jerusalem,  Jerusalem, 
thou  that  killest  the  prophets 
and  stonest  them  that  are  sent  unto  thee, 
how  often  would  I  fain  have  gathered 

thy  children 
as  a  hen  doth  gather  her  chickens  under 

her  wings 
and  ye  would  not. 
88  Behold  your  house  is  left  to  you  for- 
saken ; 


Appendix  C  225 

89  for  I  tell  you  ye  shall  not  see  me  hence- 
forth 
until  ye  shall  say,  Blessed   is  he  that 
cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.* 

*  This  quotation  from  an  unknown  writing  of  the 
Iloqmah  (Wisdom)  literature  shows  itself  to  be  an  edi- 
torial insertion  by  its  interruption  of  the  threefold  woes 
against  the  scribes,  the  scribes  being  rather,  from  its 
point  of  view,  one  of  the  three  types  of  messengers  of 
the  divine  Wisdom;  for  the  Lucan  form,  "prophets  and 
apostles,"  is  of  course  less  original  than  the  Matth«an 
"  prophets,  wise-men  and  scribes."  It  is  clear,  too,  that 
the  speaker  in  the  fragment  is,  as  Luke  says,  not  Jesus, 
but  the  Wisdom  of  God,  which  usually  is  the  case  in  the 
Wi.sdom  Literature  (Prov.  7-9).  Personified  as  the  re- 
demptive  agency  of  God  she  pleads  with  men,  but  pleads 
in  vain  until  the  day  of  Messiah,  when  the  house,  forsaken 
of  God's  presence  now  because  of  Israel's  obduracy  (cf. 
I  Esdr.  1  :  33),  will  be  filled  with  his  renewed  presence 
among  a  regenerate  people.  The  adaptation  of  Ps.  91 :  4, 
in  v.  37,  scarcely  conceivable  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  is  most 
appropriate  to  Wisdom  as  the  redemptive  agency  of  God 
(cf.  Prov.  8:3-21).  Still  more  may  this  be  said  of  the 
mournful  announcement  of  withdrawal  from  the  temple 
until  a  time  of  repentant  welcome,  in  vv.  38-39.  It  is  only 
the  ecclesiastical  identification  of  Jesus  with  the  Wisdom 
of  God,  early  as  this  was  (cf.  I  Cor.  I  :  24;  2  :  6-16),  which 
permitted  the  placing  of  this  quotation  in  a  direct  sense 
in  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  In  Luke  fortunately  the  original 
speaker  is  still  unobscured,  though  the  fragment  is  divided 
between  u  :  49-51  and  13:  34-35  and  otherwise  altered. 

Q 


226  Appendix  C 

(iii)  52Woe  unto  you  scribes 

because  ye  have  taken  away  the  key  of 

knowledge. 
Ye  enter  not  in  yourselves 
And  them  that  would  enter  in  ye  hinder. 

(6)  A   Further  Denunciation    of  Scribal 

Casuistry* 

Mt.  23 :  15-22,  24 

Mt.  23  15Woe  unto  you,   scribes   and    Pharisees, 
hypocrites ; 
because  ye  make  the  circuit  of  sea 
and  land  to  gain  one  proselyte, 

*  The  number  of  seven  woes  made  up  by  Matthew  is 
clearly  factitious,  like  his  series  of  ten  miracles  in  chap- 
ters 8-9,  and  seven  parables  in  chapter  13,  or  the  seven 
"  signs  "  or  seven  "  I  am  "  parables  of  the  fourth  gospel. 
The  six  "  woes"  of  Is.  5  :  8-24  need  not  have  been  in  the 
mind  either  of  Jesus  or  the  evangelists,  a  threefold  form 
is  natural  in  itself  and  is  repeatedly  employed  by  Jesus, 
may  even  be  called  a  favorite  with  him  (e.g.  Mt.  6 :  2-4, 
5-6,  16-18;  Mk.  9:43-48;  Mt.  23:8-10),  and  in  the 
Lucan  version  of  the  denunciation  we  see  such  a  three- 
fold division,  first  three  woes  upon  the  Pharisees,  then 
three  more  upon  the  scribes.  The  primary  difference  in 
the  Matthrean  form  is  in  the  obliteration  of  the  distinc- 
tion between  such  as  were  appropriate  to  the  Pharisees, 
who  did  not  "  sit  in  Moses'  seat "  (Mt.  23 :  2),  nor  "  bind 
heavy  burdens"  (v.  n),  nor  "take  away  the  key  of 
knowledge"  (v.  13),  since  not  they  but  the  scribes  were 


Appendix  C  227 

and  when  he  is  won  ye  make  him 
twofold  more  a  son  of  perdition 
than  yourselves. 

the  teachers ;  and  such  as  were  appropriate  to  the 
scribes,  who  were  not  characterized  by  a  punctilious 
scrupulosity  of  performance  such  as  characterized  their 
slavish  pupils,  the  Pharisees.  By  lumping  "scribes  and 
Pharisees "  together  in  the  general  formula  "  scribes 
and  Pharisees,  hypocrites,"  the  double  series  of  threes 
becomes  simply  a  sequence  of  six,  which  there  was 
strong  temptation  to  expand  to  the  favorite  number 
seven,  as  in  the  case  of  the  parables  (chapter  13). 

But  the  process  has  been  complicated  in  two  ways. 
(1)  Instead  of  the  first  Lucan  "woe  "  against  the  scribes 
we  find  a  reference  to  the  Jewish  propaganda  in  all 
lands,  whereas  the  material  of  the  woe  serves  as  an  ep- 
exegetical  addition  to  the  warning  not  to  imitate  the 
scribes  in  their  life  (Mt.  23:  3).  The  substitution  is  by 
no  means  happy,  but  as  to  the  source  of  the  substitute, 
v.  15,  we  have  no  clew.  (2)  To  make  up  the  desired 
seven  woes  two  different  methods  have  been  followed  in 
different  texts,  (a)  Verses  16-22,  which  Blass  brackets 
in  his  edition  of  1901,  on  the  ground  of  omission  by 
Chrysostom  and  the  internal  evidence,  are  certainly  no 
part  of  the  original  denunciation,  as  appears  both  from  the 
introductory  formula  and  from  the  strophic  form  ;  but 
the  evidence  for  excluding  them  from  the  canonical  Mat- 
thew is  very  weak,  and  even  the  occasion  of  their  original 
utterance  may  have  been  the  same.  (?>)  Certain  other 
inferior  authorities,  either  because  the  absence  of  verses 
16-22  made  the  supply  of  a  seventh  woe  seem  necessary, 


228  Appendix  C 

16  Woe  unto  you,  ye  blind  guides 
which  say,  Whoso  sweareth   by  the 

sanctuary  it  is  nothing, 
But  whoso  sweareth  by  the  gold  of 
the  sanctuary  is  bound  by  his  oath. 

17  Ye  fools  and  blind ; 

for  which  is  greater,  the  gold,  or  the 
sanctuary  that  made  the  gold  holy? 

or  because  the  difference  in  the  introductory  formula 
seemed  to  exclude  16  ff.  from  the  count,  introduce  verse 
14,  a  "  woe  "  made  up  from  Mk.  12  :  40. 

In  a  word  the  confusion  produced  by  Matthew  in  the 
Galilean  twofold  triple  denunciation  seems  to  be  clue  to 
the  attempt  to  combine  it  with  another  discourse,  or  two 
other  discourses,  unknown  outside  of  Mt.  23,  the  whole 
in  combination  being  framed  to  produce  a  series  of  seven 
woes  against  the  "  hypocrites "  of  orthodox  Judaism. 
Whether  part  of  this  foreign  material  came  in,  as  Blass 
conjectures,  subsequently  to  the  publication  of  our 
canonical  gospel,  or  whether,  as  our  use  of  uniform  type 
implies,  our  evangelist  himself  made  the  combination, 
omitting  to  conform  the  introductory  formula  of  v.  16  to 
*3>  ^St  23>  25i  27>  an(l  29  only  because  he  was  not  aim- 
ing at  a  series  of  seven,  but  only  to  reproduce  the  two 
threes  of  his  model,  is  a  subordinate  question.  The 
above,  however,  will  represent  the  principal  elements  of 
fact  in  a  discussion  of  The  Seven  Woes  of  Matthew's 
Gospel  which  has  come  to  hand  since  this  volume  was 
sent  to  press,  viz.,  the  Appendix  having  this  title  in  The 
Messages  of  Jesus  according  to  the  Syuoptists,  by  Thomas 
C.  Hall,  D.D.,  Scribner's  Sons,  1901. 


appendix  C  229 

18  And  again,  Whoso  sweareth  by  the 

altar,  it  is  nothing  ; 
but  whoso  sweareth  by  the  gift  that 
is  on  the  altar  is  bound  by  his  oath. 

19  Ye  blind  ;  for  which  is  greater,  the 

gift,  or  the  altar  that  makes  the 
gift  holy  ?  * 

20  He,  then,  who  sweareth  by  the  altar 
sweareth  by  it,  and  by  all  the  things 

on  it, 

21  And  he  who  sweareth  by  the  sanctuary 
sweareth  by  it,  and  by  Him  who  in- 

habiteth  it, 
22 And  he  that  sweareth  by  heaven 
sweareth  by  the  throne  of  God,  and 

by  Him  that  sitteth  upon  it. 
24  Ye  blind  guides,  which  filter  out  a 

gnat,  and  swallow  a  camel  !  t 

*  For  the  literary  structure  compare  the  twofold  illus- 
trations of  scribal  righteousness  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  Mt.  5:  21-22,  27-28,  31-32.  Also  with  the  gen- 
eral statement  verse  15,  followed  by  16,  iS,  and  20-22, 
each  ending  with  the  refrain  17,  19,  24,  compare  Mt. 
6:1,  2-4,  5-6,  16-18. 

f  That  portion  of  Mt.  23  which  is  found  nowhere  else 
seems  to  firm  a  discourse  against  the  scribes  for  their 
false  casuistry.  Of  16-22  we  have  spoken.  Verses  15 
and  24  seem  to  be  connected.  "  Blind  guides "  re- 
calls Mt.  15  :  14. 


230  Appendix  C 

Jesus  reiterates  in  Private  to  the  Twelve  his  Re- 
pudiation of  the  Scribes  and  their  Traditions 

The  *  Hedge  of  the  Law  '  shall  be  rooted  up 

Mt.  15 :  12-13 
Mt.  15  12Then  the  disciples  came  near  and 
say  unto  him,  Knowest  thou  that  the  Pharisees 
when  they  heard  that  saying*  were  scandalized? 
13  But  he  answered  and  said  :  — 

Every  plant  which  my  heavenly  Father  hath 
not  planted  shall  be  rooted  up. 

Blindness  of  Soul  Fatal  and  Incurable 

Mt.    15:14;    6  :  22-23  =  Lk.  6  :  39  ;    ":34"35L36]  = 
Jn.  9:39-41  ;    10  : 1-6 

Mt.  15  14Let   them   alone;     they   are   blind 
23 :  24.  leaders  of  the  blind  ■ ;  but  if  the  blind  lead 

the  blind,  both  shall  fall  into  the  ditch. 

*  The  reference  in  the  context  is  to  the  revolutionary 
utterance  by  which  Jesus,  as  our  second  evangelist  re- 
marks, had  swept  away  the  Mosaic  distinctions  of  clean 
and  unclean  meats.  The  disciples  now  somewhat  timidly 
inquire  if  Jesus  realizes  the  effect  of  his  utterances  on 
the  religious  authorities.  The  occasion  is  by  Matthew 
made  the  same  as  that  when  the  disciples  (Mt.,  "  Peter") 
ask  an  explanation  of  the  saying,  and  this  is  doubtless 
correct  but  as  the  Markan  form  is  clearly  the  more 
original,  we  have  permitted  the  digression  to  stand  in 
the  unchronological  Markan  order  (see  above,  p.  221). 


Appendix  C  23 1 

6  ^The  lamp  of  the  body  is  the  eye ;  if  thine 
eye  be  pure  thy  whole  body  shall  be  lit  up. 
23  But  if  thine  eye  be  false,"  thy  whole  body  <*  Mk.  7:22; 
shall  be  dark.     If,  therefore,  the  very  light  3 :  22- 
that  is  in  thee  be  darkness,  how  great  is 
the  darkness.* 

V.   Third  Discourse  of  the  Crisis  in  Galilee. 

The  Scribes  and  Pharisees  demand  a  Sign 

from  Heaven       _ 

Occasion 

After  coming  out  from  the  scene  of  contro- 
versy in  the  Pharisee's  house,  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  meet  Jesus  with  violent  opposition. 
Lk.  11 :  53-12:  1  (duplicate  n  :  29') 

Lk.  11  ^And  when  he  came  out  thence 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees  began  to  press  him 
violently,  and  to  cross-examine  him  on  many 
points,  lying  in  wait  for  him  to  seize  some  word 
from  his  lips. 

*  This  passage  from  the  Matthnean  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  appears  from  the  setting  of  the  parallels  in  Luke 
and  John  to  have  been  uttered  on  occasion  of  the  blas- 
phemous insinuation  of  the  Jerusalem  scribes.  V.  23 
thus  appears  in  the  light  of  an  explanation  of  the  awful 
utterance  about  the  sin  that  hath  never  forgiveness,  and  is 
a  further  link  to  connect  it  with  the  denunciation  of  the 
blind  leaders  of  the  blind,  and  the  warning  against  an 
"  evil  eye."     See  Appendix  A  (8),  p.  150. 


232  Appendix  C 

They  demand  a  Sign  from  Heaven 

Mt.  12  :  38  (duplicate  16  :  1)  =  Mk.  8  :  II  =  Lk.  II  :  16 
=  Jn.  6  :  30-31 

Mt.  12  38Then  certain  of  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  answered  him  saying,  Teacher,  we 
would  see  a  sign  from  thee. 

Jesus'  Reply  :    The  Sign  of  Jonah 

Mt.  12:  39-42    (duplicate   16:  2-4)  =  Mk.  8  :  12  =  Lk. 
II:  29-31 

Mt.  12  "But  he  answered  and  said  unto 
them  :  — 

A  wicked  and  adulterous  generation 

seeketh  after  a  sign 

and  no  sign  shall  be  given  it 

save  the  sign  of  Jonah  the  prophet. 

40  For  like  as  Jonah  was  in      Lk.  1 1  30  For  just  as  Jonah 

the  seamonster's  belly  was    himself    a 

three   days  and  three  sign  to  the  men 

nights  of  Nineveh, 

so  shall  the  Son  of  Man  so  shall  the  Son  of 

be  in  the  heart  of  the  Man  be  to  this 

earth   three  days  and  generation.* 
three  nights. 

*  The  parallel  explanations  of  "  the  sign  of  Jonah  " 
above  given  are  both  absent  from  the  alternate  version, 
Mk.  8:  11-12  =  Mt.  16:  1-4.  That  of  Luke  11  :  30  has 
at  least  the  merit  of  being  conceivably  correct,  since  it 
agrees  with  the  facts  of  the   O.  T.  narrative,   whereiri 


Appendix  C  233 

41  The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  arise  in  the  judg- 
ment 
together  with  this  generation 
and  shall  condemn  it ; 
for  they  repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah, 
and  lo,  a  greater  matter  than  Jonah  is  here. 

Jonah's  preaching  to  the  Ninevites  is  peculiarly  charac- 
terized by  the  very  fact  that  they  neither  ask  nor  receive 
miraculous  authentication  of  his  exhortation  and  warn- 
ing, and  further  agrees  with  its  own  context  (v.  32)  in 
which  Jesus  points  out  this  contrast  with  the  generation 
that  demands  a  sign.     That  of  Mt.  12:40  is  absolutely 
excluded  by  its  contradiction  of  the  context,  missing  the 
real  point  of  comparison,  and  substituting  the  trivial  and 
inapposite  one  of  the  three  (?)  days  of  Jesus'  lying  in 
the  grave.     But  in  my  judgment  the  most  genuine  form 
of  the  tradition  is  that  which  excludes  both,  both  being 
attempts  of  later  reporters  to  explain  this  enigmatic  say- 
ing of  Jesus.     In  point  of  fact  Jesus  did  believe  that  one 
great  sign  had  been  given,  but  had  remained  unobserved 
because  the  adulterous  generation  was  blind  to  divine 
portents  in  its  craze  for  superstition  (Lk.  17:20-21). 
Elias,  whose  coming  to  prepare  Israel  by  repentance  for 
the  great  "  day  of  Jehovah  "  was  God's  appointed  sign  of 
the  Son  of  Man,  had  come,  "  and  they  did  unto  him  as 
they  listed."     It  was  shortly  after  this  that  the  disciples 
learned  from  Jesus'  lips  how  deep  a  significance  he  at- 
tached to  the  appearance  and  fate  of  John  the  Baptist 
(Mk.  9 :  13).     Now  the  succeeding  context,  Mt.  12 :  41- 
42,  accuses  this  wicked  generation  of  a  twofold  obduracy 
put  to  shame  by  the  very  heathen  of  the  O.  T.    They 


234  Appendix  C 

42 The  Queen  of  the  South  shall  arise  in  the 
judgment 
together  with  this  generation 
and  shall  condemn  it ; 
for  she  came  from  the  ends  of  the  earth 

have  rejected  a  great  proclamation  of  repentance  like 
that  of  Jonah  though  the  men  of  Nineveh  did  not,  and 
they  have  also  rejected  the  winning  entreaty  of  the 
divine  wisdom  (see  above,  p.  225,  note  on  the  Jewish  con- 
ception of  '  wisdom  '  as  the  redemptive  agency  of  God's 
fatherly  love),  though  the  Queen  of  Sheba  did  not.  It  is 
possible  that  in  both  cases  Jesus  was  referring  to  his  own 
preaching;  but  (1)  the  enigmatic  reference  to  the 
former  as  a  "sign,"  (2)  the  analogy  of  other  passages  in 
which  Jesus  couples  together  their  treatment  of  John  the 
Baptist  and  himself  (Mt.  11:16-19,  I7:I°-I3;  Lk. 
7 :  29-30)  and  declares  John  greater  than  all  earlier 
prophets  (Lk.  7 :  24-28),  and  (3)  the  contrast  so  bold  a 
reference  to  himself  as  greater  than  Jonah  and  Solomon 
would  present  to  Jesus'  invariable  reserve  regarding  his 
own  personality  in  public  address,  suggest  rather  that 
only  the  latter  of  the  two  comparisons  refers  to  his  own 
preaching,  the  former  referring  to  the  Baptist's  message 
of  repentance  so  like  that  of  Jonah.  This  view  is  further 
corroborated  by  the  admirable  appropriateness  which 
then  appears  in  the  succeeding  context  of  Matthew,  the 
Parable  of  the  House  Swept  and  Garnished,  whose  appli- 
cation is  expressly  declared  to  be  to  "this  evil  genera- 
tion." It  had  seemed  to  purge  itself  at  the  preaching  of 
the  Baptist,  but  did  not  a-lmit  God's  Spirit,  the  rightful 
tenant,  when  He  came  to  His  abode. 


Appendix  C  235 

to  hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon 
and  lo,  a  greater  matter  than  Solomon  is 
here.* 

Parable  of  the  House  Swept  and  Garnished 

Mt.  12 :  43-45  =  Lk.  1 1 :  24-26 

Mt.  12  ^  Whenever  an  unclean  spirit  goes  out 
from  a  man,  it  passes  through  arid  places  seek- 
ing for  rest  and  findeth  none.  '"Then  it  saith,  I 
will  return  unto  my  abode  whence  I  came 
forth ;  and  it  cometh  and  findeth  it  empty  and 
swept  and  garnished.  4iThen  it  goeth  and 
taketh  to  itself  seven  other  spirits  worse  than 
itself,  and  they  come  in  and  take  up  their  abode 
there,  and  the  last  state  of  that  man  becomes 
worse  than  the  first.  So  shall  it  be  also  unto 
this  wicked  generation.! 

*  I.e.  the  gracious  call  of  God  extended  through  Jesus 
to  repentant  sinners. 

t  Matthew  is  clearly  correct  in  regarding  this  parable 
as  applying  to  the  wicked  generation  purged  by  the  bap- 
tism of  John  but  untenanted  by  the  Spirit  sent  with  the 
Messiah,  and  not,  with  Luke,  as  a  mere  comparison  of 
the  permanence  of  Jesus'  exorcisms  with  those  of  the 
Pharisees.  But  this  being  so  it  can  hardly  be  otherwise 
than  part  of  the  extended  discourse  which  Matthew  gives 
as  preceding. 


236  Appendix  C 

Spiritual  Kindred ;  an  Episode  and  Saying 

Mk.  3:  20-21,  31-32  =  Mt.  12:  46-50  =  Lk.  8:  19-21 
{duplicate,  I 1 :  27-28) 

Mk.  3  ^[And  he  cometh  home;  and  the 
crowd  cometh  together  again  so  that  they  could 
not  even  eat  bread.  21And  when  his  kindred 
heard  it  they  went  forth  to  lay  hands  on  him,  for 
they  said  to  themselves,  He  is  beside  himself 
*  *  *].*  And  there  come  his  mother  and  his 
brethren,  and  standing  outside  they  sent  a  mes- 
sage to  him  calling  him  forth.  32And  a  crowd 
was  sitting  around  him,  and  they  tell  him,  Lo, 
thy  mother  and  thy  brethren  are  outside  asking 
for  thee.     Lk.  11  ^  [And  it  came  to  pass  as  he 

*  This  description  probably  refers  to  the  same  scene 
as  described  above  (p.  231)  in  the  language  of  Lk. 
II  :  53-12:  1.  Mark  appends  the  story  to  his  account 
of  the  choosing  of  the  Twelve  for  the  sake  of  the  say- 
ing, "  My  mother  and  brethren  are  they  that  hear,"  etc. 
Matthew  and  Luke  omit  this  introduction.  Between  21 
and  31  Mark  again  inserts  the  blasphemy  of  the  scribes, 
thus  making  it  a  foil  for  the  venial  sin  of  Jesus'  mother 
and  brethren,  who  said  only  f^etrnv.  But  the  logian 
version  of  the  saying  in  Lk.  11  .-27,  widely  as  it  varies 
from  the  Markan,  which  Luke  repeats  in  8:  19-21,  is 
close  enough  to  prove  identity,  and  this  also  is  connected 
(perhaps  improperly)  with  the  same  occasion.  Mark's 
displacement,  accordingly,  is  but  slight. 


Appendix  C  2}7 

was  saying  these  things]*  a  certain  woman  out 
of  the  crowd  lifted  up  her  voice  and  said  to  him, 
Blessed  is  the  womb  that  bare  thee  and  the 
breasts  which  thou  didst  suck.  ^But  he  said, 
Nay,  rather  blessed  are  they  that  hear  the  word 
of  God  and  keep  it. 

Mk.  3  MAnd  looking  round  on  those  who 
were  sitting  in  a  circle  about  him  he  saith,  Be- 
hold my  mother  and  my  brethren. 

VI.  Fourth  Discourse  of  the  Galilean  Crisis 
Jesus  warns  against  the  Leaven  (Bread) 
of  the  Pharisees 

Mk.  8:  13-21  =  Mt.  16:  5-12=  Lk.  12:  1  =Jn.  6:  30-35 

Occasion 

Mk.  8  "And  he  left  them  f  and  entering  again 
into  the  boat  he  departed  to  the  other  side. 

*  The  reference  is  to  the  parable  of  the  House  Swept 
and  Garnished,  but  the  woman's  ejaculation  is  occasioned 
—  if  we  may  judge  by  what  Mark  relates  of  the  occasion 
of  the  logion  —  by  the  message  that  Jesus'  mother  was 
outside. 

t  The  reference  is  to  the  Pharisees  who  had  demanded 
the  Sign  from  Heaven,  this  one  of  Mark's  sources  hav- 
ing nothing  more  to  tell  of  the  crisis  than  the  simple 
fact  of  the  demand  and  Jesus'  refusal,  Mk.  8:  10-13. 


238  Appendix  C 

14  And  they  had  forgotten  to  take  bread,  and 
had  no  more  than  a  single  loaf  with  them  in  the 
boat.  15And  he  was  charging  them,  saying, 
"Take  heed,  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Phari- 
sees, and  of  the  leaven  of  Herod."  *  16  And  they 
were  debating  with  one  another,  "  It  is  because 
we  have  no  bread."  "  And  when  he  perceived 
it  he  saith  unto  them  :  — 

Why  are  ye  in  debate  because  ye  have  no 
bread  ? 

Do  ye  not  yet  perceive  nor  understand? 

Have  ye  your  heart  made  callous? 

18  Having  eyes  see  ye  not, 
and  having  ears  hear  ye  not? 
And  do  ye  not  remember 

19  when  I  brake  the  five  loaves  among  the  five 

thousand 

*  The  warning  against  the  teaching  of  the  Pharisees 
under  the  simile  of  bread  (Mt.  16:  12),  following  as  it 
does  upon  the  Feeding  of  the  Multitude,  Messianic  Mur- 
murs, and  Demand  of  a  Sign  from  Heaven,  has  its 
counterpart  in  the  Discourse  on  the  True  Bread  from 
Heaven  in  John.  Luke  also  (12:  1)  has  the  bare  state- 
ment that  this  parabolic  warning  was  given  at  this  time. 
But  the  Synoptic  narrative,  while  suggesting  the  possi- 
bility of  some  extended  discourse  on  this  subject,  con- 
cerns itself  only  with  the  concluding  words  of  Jesus  when 
in  the  boat  he  rebuked  his  disciples  for  their  lack  of 
insight  and  lack  of  faith. 


Appendix  C  239 

how  many  hampers  full  of  broken  pieces  ye 
took  up? 

20  They  say  unto  him,  Twelve. 

And  when  the  seven  among  the  four  thousand 
how  many  baskets   full   of  broken   pieces  took 
ye  up?* 

21  And  they  say  unto  him,  Seven. 
And  he  said  unto  them 

Do  ye  not  yet  understand? 
224  And  they  come  unto  Bethsaida. 


VII.    Warnings  of  Impending  Judgment 

Sayings  principally  reported  in  Lk.  12:  35-13:  35 
(1)    On  the  Futility  of  Dependence  on  Privilege 

Occasion 

Lk.  13:  22-23 

Lk.  13  22  And  he  was  passing  through  cities 

and  villages,  teaching  and  journeying  on  toward 

Jerusalem.     23And  a  certain  man  said  to  him, 

Lord,  are  those  that  are  saved  few  in  number? 

*  The  compiler  of  our  second  gospel  here  combines 
the  two  versions  of  the  Feeding  of  the  Multitude.  From 
the  connection  it  would  appear  to  be  the  version  of 
8:  1-10  {Four  thousand)  with  which  the  passage  was 
originally  connected. 


240  Appendix  C 

Parable  of  the  Narrow  Door 
Lk.  13:  24  =  Mt.  7:  13-14 
And  he  said  unto  them  :  — 

24  Strive  hard  to   enter  by  the  narrow 

door, 
for    many,    I   tell   you,   will   seek   to 

enter  in 
and  will  not  be  able. 

Mt.  7  13  For  wide  is  the  gate  and  spacious  the 
way 
that  leadeth  to  destruction 
and  many  are  they  that  pass  in  by  it. 

"For  narrow   is   the   gate  and   strait- 
Acts  14 :  22.  ened a  the  way 

that  leadeth  unto  life 

and  few  are  they  that  find  it. 

Many  who  claim  a  Place  in  the  Kingdom  will 
be  Rejected 

Mt.  7  :  21-23  =  Lk.  13 :  26-27  * 

Mt.  7  21Not    everyone    that    saith   unto    me 
Lord,  Lord, 
shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God, 

*  While  it  is  quite  clear  that  this  logion  is  out  of  place  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (see  Appendix  A  (11),  p.  166), 


Appendix  C  241 

but  he  that   doeth  the  will  of   my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven. 
22  Many  will  say  (to  the  king)  in  that 
day, 
Lk.  13  26  We  did  eat  and  drink  in  thy  presence 
and    thou   didst  teach*   (?)    in  our 
streets ; 

especially  in  the  Matthrean  form,  which  makes  it  apply 
to  false  teachers  in  the  church  (7:22,  contrast  Lk. 
13:  26),  it  is  much  less  easy  to  assign  it  its  true  position. 
True  the  occasion  is  well  defined  in  Lk.  13:  22-24,  but 
warnings  of  judgment  to  come  must  have  been  a  con- 
stant feature  in  the  preaching  of  Jesus  (Mk.  1 :  15),  and 
there  are  utterances  with  which  the  present  might  seem 
to  have  a  closer  relation  than  with  the  Lucan  context ; 
for  example,  the  Dirge  upon  the  Galilean  Cities  reported 
by  both  Luke  (10 :  13-16)  and  Matthew  (11  :  20-24)  in 
connection  with  the  Mission  of  the  Disciples  in  Galilee 
(cf.  Lk.  13:  26  with  10:  13).  The  combined  authority 
of  Matthew  and  Luke  forbids  our  transferring  hither  the 
Dirge,  appropriately  as  it  might  lead  in  the  question,  Lk. 
13:  23,  and  subsequent  discourse  We  prefer  to  remain 
in  doubt  as  to  an  original  relation  between  the  elements 
of  Lk.  13:22-30.  In  particular  Lk.  13:30  has  better 
connection  in  Mt.  19 :  30 ;  20  :  16,  and  the  parable  of  the 
Closed  Door  (v.  25  =  Mt.  25:  1-13)  is  quite  artificially 
brought  in.  But  Matthew  should  not  have  removed 
verses  28-29  to  place  them  after  the  story  of  the  Be- 
lieving Centurion  (8: 1-10). 

*  The  word  "  teach  "  reflects  upon  Jesus'  own  career. 
"  Walk  "  is  more  likely  to  have  been  the  original. 
R 


242  Appendix  C 

and  he  *  will  say, 
I  tell  you  I  never  knew  you ; 
begone  from  me  all   ye  workers  of 
"  Mt.  25 :  41.  wickedness." 

Abrahamic  Descent  a  Worthless  Dependence 

Mt.  8: 11-12  =  Lk.  13:  28-29 

Mt.  8  u  And  I  tell  you  that  many  shall  come 
from  east  and  west  and  shall  take  their 
places  at  the  feast  with  Abraham,  Isaac 
and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  ^But 
the  sons  of  the  kingdom  shall  go  forth  into 
the  outer  darkness ;  there  shall  be  weeping 
*  Mt.  24 :  51 ;  and  gnashing  of  teeth.6 


25 :  30. 


*The  Lucan  form,  which  puts  this  judgment  in  the 
mouth  of  the  Messianic  Judge  spoken  of  in  the  third 
person,  is  alone  conceivable  at  any  time  previous  to 
Jesus'  full  revelation  of  his  Messianic  character.  Even 
then  the  "  I "  could  only  have  been  spoken  in  the  inner 
circle  of  the  Twelve.  It  is  indeed  probable  that  these 
parables  of  the  judgment  belong  to  the  period  subse- 
quent to  Caesarea  Philippi,  but  even  so  the  "  I  will  say  " 
seems  less  probable  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  Besides  this 
the  Matthaean  form  clearly  shows  adaptation  to  the  con- 
ditions of  a  church  already  troubled  by  false  teachers. 
We  ventured  also  the  opinion  that  the  original  utterance 
will  have  had  "  walk  "  rather  than  "  teach,"  the  reference 
of  which  to  Jesus  himself  would  have  been  so  obvious. 


Appendix  C  243 

(  2 )   Real  Basis  of  the  Messianic  Judgment 

Parable  of  the  Shepherd  dividing  his  Flock 

Mt.  25:31-46 

Mt.  25  31But  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come 
in  his  giory  and  all  the  angels  with 
him, 
then  shall  he  sit  upon  his  '  throne  of 
glory,' 
3:!and  all  the  nations  shall  be  gathered 
together  before  him, 
and  he  shall  separate  them  one  man 

from  another, 
as  a  shepherd  separates  sheep  from 
goats. 
33 And  he  shall  set  the  sheep  on  his 
right  hand,  and  the  goats  on  his 
left. 

34  Then  shall  the  king  say  to  those  on 

his  right  hand, 

Come  ye  that  were  blessed  of  my 
Father, 

inherit  the  kingdom  that  was  pre- 
pared for  you  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world. 

35  For  I  was  hungry  and  ye  gave  me  to 

eat, 
thirsty  and  ye  gave  me  to  drink, 
a  stranger  and  ye  took  me  in, 


244  Appendix  C 

naked  and  ye  clothed  me, 
I  was  sick  and  ye  visited  me, 
in  prison  and  ye  came  to  me. 

87 Then  will  the  righteous  answer  him  and  say, 
Sir,  when  did  we  see  thee  hungry  and  feed 

thee, 
or  thirsty  and  give  thee  drink? 

38  And  when  did  we  see  thee  a  stranger  and 

took  thee  in, 
or  naked  and  clothed  thee? 

39  When  did  we  see  thee  sick  or  in  prison  and 

came  to  thee? 

40  And  the  king  will  answer  and  say  to  them, 
I  tell  you  of  a  truth, 

By  so  much  as  ye  did  it  to  one  of  these 

brethren  of  mine, 
these  men  of  very  small  account, 
ye  did  it  to  me." 

41  Then  will  he  speak  to  those  on  his  left, 
Begone  from  me,  ye  accurst, 

into  the  everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the 
Devil  and  his  angels. 

42  For  I  was  hungry  and  ye  gave  me  naught 

to  eat, 
thirsty  and  ye  gave  me  no  drink, 

43  a  stranger  and  ye  took  me  not  in, 
naked  and  ye  clothed  me  not, 

sick  and  in  prison  and  ye  visited  me  not. 


Appendix  C  245 

44  Then  these  too  will  answer  and  say, 

Sir,  when  did  we  see  thee  hungry  or  thirsty, 
or  a  stranger,  or  naked, 
or  sick,  or  in  prison, 
and  did  thee  no  service? 

45  Then  he  will  answer  them,  saying, 
I  tell  you  of  a  truth, 

By  so  much  as  ye  did  it  not  to  one  of  these 

men  of  very  small  account, 
ye  also  did  it  not  to  me. 

46  And  these  shall  go   away  into  everlasting 

punishment, 
but  the  righteous  into  everlasting  life. 

A  Connected  Incident 

Lk.  13  :  31-33 

Lk.  13  31At  that  same  hour  there  came  up 
certain  Pharisees  and  said  to  him,  Depart,  and 
get  away  hence,  for  Herod  desireth  to  kill  thee. 
32 And  he  said  to  them,  Go,  and  tell  that  jackal : 
Lo,  I  cast  out  demons  and  perform  my  healings 
to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  on  the  third  day  I 
shall  be  through.  ^But  I  must  needs  go  on  to- 
day and  to-morrow  and  the  next  day,  for  it  can- 
not be  that  a  prophet  should  perish  except  in 
Jerusalem. 


246  Appendix  C 

(3)  Be  Ready  to  give  Account  in  the  Judgment 

Occasion 
Lk.  17:  20  * 

Lk.17  20aAnd  being  asked  by  the  Pharisees 
when  the  kingdom  of  God  cometh,  he  answered 
them  and  said  :  — 

No  Prognostication  will  avail  to  date  the 
Parousia 

Lk.  17:  2ob-2i  (=  Mk.  13:  21  =  Mt.  24:  23?) 

Lk.  17  20bThe  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not 
with  taking  of  observations,  neither  shall 
people  say,  Lo,  here,  or  there.  21  For  be- 
hold, the  kingdom  of  God  is  among  you. 

The  Signs  of  the  Times  are  Enough  to  prove  it 

Near 

Lk.  12  :  54-56  =  Mt.  16  :  2-3  (/3  text) 

Lk.  12  54  Whenever  ye  see  a  cloud   rising  in 
the  west, 
at  once  ye  say,  There  is  rain  coming  ; 
and  so  it  comes  to  pass. 
"And  whenever  the  south  wind  blows, 
ye  say,  There  will  be  scorching  heat ; 
and  so  it  comes  to  pass. 
66  Ye  hypocrites, 


Appendix  C  247 

ye  know  how  to  take  account  of  the 
appearance  of  earth  and  heaven  j 

how  is  it  that  ye  know  not  how  to 
take  account  of  this  epoch? 

Be  reconciled  ere   too  Late  with   him  who  is 
bringing  his  Suit  against  Israel 

Lk.  12 :  57-59  =  Mt.  5  :  25-26 

Lk.  1 2  5;  And  why  even  of  your  own  selves  do 
ye  not  judge  what  is  right  ?  M  For  as  thou 
art  going  with  him  who  is  suing  thee  before 
the  magistrate,  do  thy  utmost  to  effect  a 
settlement  with  him  on  the  road,  lest  per- 
haps he  drag  thee  before  the  judge,  and  the 
judge  deliver  thee  to  the  sheriff  and  the 
sheriff  cast  thee  into  prison.  ra  I  tell  thee, 
Thou  shalt  never  come  out  thence  till  thou 
have  paid  the  last  farthing. 

A  Warning  based  on  Current  Events 
Lk. 13: 1-5 

Jesus  told  of  the  Fate  0/  Pilate's  Victims 

Occasion 

Lk.  13  *And  there  were  some  present  on  that 
same  occasion  who  informed  him  concerning  the 
Galileans  whose  blood  Pilate  had  mingled  with 


248  Appendix  C 

that  of  their  sacrifices.     2And  he  answered  and 
said  unto  them  :  — 

Suppose  ye  that  these  Galileans  were  sinful 
beyond  all  the  men  of  Galilee 
because  they  suffered  these  things? 
3 1  tell  you,  Nay, 
but  except  ye  repent 
ye  shall  all  perish  in  a  like  manner. 

4  Or  those  eighteen 

on  whom  the  tower  fell  in  Siloam  and  killed 
them, 

suppose  ye  that  they  were  transgressors 

beyond  all  the  men  that  dwell  in  Jerusalem  ? 
6 1  tell  you,  Nay, 

but  except  ye  repent 

ye  shall  all  perish  in  a  like  manner. 

Parable  of  the  Barren  Fig  Tree 

Lk.  13:  6-9 

Lk.  13  6And  he  spake  this  parable  :  — 

A  certain  man  had  a  fig  tree  planted  in  his 
vineyard,  and  he  came  seeking  fruit  on  it, 
and  found  none.  7  And  he  said  to  the  vine 
dresser,  See  here,  it  is  now  three  years  that 
I  have  come  to  seek  fruit  on  this  fig  tree, 
and  I  find  none  ;  cut  it  down ;  why  should 
it  make  the  ground  useless  as  well?     "But 


Appendix  C  249 

he  answered  and  said  to  him,  Master,  leave 
it  alone  for  this  one  year  more,  till  I  have 
digged  and  put  dung  about  it,  9and  if  it 
bear  fruit  thereafter,  very  well ;  but  if  not, 
cut  it  down.* 

*  The  parable  of  the  barren  fig  tree  should  not  be 
identified  with  the  incident  (Mk.  II:  12-14,  2°~25  — 
Mt.  21  :  18-22),  though  Luke's  omission  of  the  latter  is 
doubtless  for  this  reason,  just  as  he  omits  Mk.  14:  3-9  in 
view  of  Lk.  7 :  36-50.  The  incident,  which  properly 
ends  with  Mk.  11:14  (compare  Mt.  21  :  19)  is  too  clearly 
dated,  and  that  in  spite  of  the  evangelist's  consciousness 
of  the  discrepancy  in  the  season  of  year  (Mk.  11  :  I3b), 
to  allow  it  to  be  set  aside.  We  may  understand  the  oc- 
currence as  simply  an  application  by  Jesus  of  the  methods 
of  prophetic  symbolism  (cf.  Ez.  39  :  17).  The  precocious 
promise  of  a  fig  tree  thus  early  (March  —  April)  in  full 
leaf,  attracting  his  attention  as  he  goes  from  Bethany 
toward  Jerusalem,  he  approaches,  only  to  find  it  as  barren 
of  the  budding  fruit  as  its  flourishing  appearance  gave 
reason  to  expect  the  contrary.  The  curse  thereupon 
pronounced  has  no  reference  to  the  tree,  save  as  a  type 
and  symbol  of  the  outwardly  promising,  inwardly  barren 
Israel.  Hence  in  its  first  form  the  story  must  have 
ended  with  the  utterance,  "  No  man  eat  fruit  of  thee 
henceforth  forever."  The  rest  is  the  work  of  our  evan- 
gelists, Matthew  and  Mark,  who,  each  in  his  own  way, 
seek  to  piece  out  what  they  regard  as  an  incomplete 
account.  Both  assume  a  visible  effect  upon  the  tree, 
Matthew  instantly  (Trapaxpyna,  a  Lucan  word,  not 
found    elsewhere   in    Matthew),    Mark   the    next    day; 


250  Appendix  C 

(4)   Suddenness  of  the  Parousia 

The  Day  of  the  Lord  will  come  like  the  Flood 

Mt.  24:  37-39  =  Lk.  17  :  26-27 

Mt.  24  37  And  as  were  the  days  of  Noah 

so  shall  be  the  Coming  of  the  Son 
of  Man. 
38 For  as  people  were  in  the  days  be- 
fore the  cataclysm 
eating  and  drinking,    marrying    and 

giving  in  marriage 
until  the  day  that  Noah  entered  into 
the  ark, 
39  and  knew  not  until  the  flood  came 
and  swept  them  all  away  ; 
so  shall  be  also  the  Coming  of  the 
Son  of  Man. 

and  Mark  further  attaches  two  logia,  one  (Mk.  11 :  22- 
24)  rightly  located  by  Matthew  in  17:20,  the  other 
(11:25)  located  by  Matthew  no  better  than  here  in 
6:14-15.  Mk.  11:20-21  is  editorial  solder.  If  the 
reader  be  indisposed  to  grant  the  possibility  of  both  a 
parable  and,  subsequently,  an  incident  of  a  barren  fig 
tree,  then  it  is  far  better  to  suppose  that  the  parable  has 
been  elaborated  from  the  symbolic  utterance,  as  some 
derive  Lk.  15:  11-32  from  Mt.  21  :  28-31,  or  Mt.  25:  I- 
13  from  Lk.  13:25,  than  vice  versa.  Mk.  11:12-14 
must  be  accepted  as  historical. 


Appendix  C  251 

Or  like  the  Judgment  upon  Sodom 

Lk.  17:  28-30 

Lk.  17  ^Just  as  it  happened  likewise  in  the 
days  of  I  ot. 
They  were  eating,  drinking,  buying, 
selling,  planting,  building. 

29  But  in  the  day  that  Lot  went  forth 

out  of  Sodom 
it   rained  fire    and   brimstone  from 
heaven  and  destroyed  them  all. 

30  After  the  same  manner  shall  it  be  in 

the  day  when  the  Son  of  Man  is 
revealed. 

One  shall  be  taken,  Another  left 
Mt.  24:40-41  =  Lk.  17:34-35 

Mt.  24  ''"Then  shall  there  be  two  men  in  the 

field  ; 

one  shall  be  taken  and  the  other  left. 

41  There  shall  be  two  women  grinding 

at  the  mill ; 

one  shall  be  taken  and  the  other  left. 

Carrion  calls  its  own  Scavengers 

Lk.  17  :  37  =  Mt.  24:  28 

Lk.  17  37And   they  answered    him   and    say, 
Where,  Lord?     But  he  said  unto  them  :  — 


252  Appendix  C 

Wherever  the  carcase  is 
there  the  vultures  will  be  gathered 
together. 

A  Warning  against  False  Alarms  of  the 
Parous ia 

Lk.  1 7 :  22 

Lk.  17  22And  he  said  unto  the  disciples :  — 
Days  will  come  when  ye  will  long  to 

see  one  of  the  days  of  the  Son  of 

Man 
and  ye  shall  not  see  it. 

7'he  Reality  will  admit  no  Mistake 

Mt.  24 :  26-27  =  Lk.  1 7  :  23-24 

Mt.  24  26If,  therefore,  they  say  to  you,  Lo,  he 
is  in  the  wilderness, 
go  not  forth  ; 
Lo,  he  is  in  his  chambers, 
believe  it  not. 
27  For   even  as   the  lightning  cometh 
forth  from  the  east  and  shineth 
unto  the  west ; 
so  shall  be  the  Parousia  of  the  Son 
of  Man. 
Lk.  I  7  2a  But  first  must  he  surfer  many  things  and  be 
rejected  of  this  generation. 


Appendix  C  253 

(5)   Parables  on  being  Ready  for  the  Parousia 

The  Ten  Virgins 

Mt.  25: 1-12  =  Lk.  12:  35-38;  13:25* 

Mt.  25  lrrhen  shall  the  kingdom  of  God  be 
likened  to  ten  virgins  which  took  their 
lamps  and  went  forth  to  meet  the  bride- 
groom and  the  bride. t  2And  five  of  them 
were  foolish,  and  five  prudent.  3  For  the 
foolish  took  their  lamps,  but  took  no  oil 

*  We  have  seen  above  (p.  166),  in  connection  with 
Mt.  7  :  21-23  =  Lk.  I3:23~27>  t'1111  Lk.  13:25  is  an 
embellishment  not  originally  part  of  the  saying  about 
the  narrow  door.  The  figure  of  fruitless  attempts  to 
enter  the  "door"  of  the  kingdom  leads  to  its  introduc- 
tion. We  have  here  a  parallel  to  Luke's  treatment  of 
Mk.  14:  3-9  which  he  omits,  though  borrowing  a  trait  or 
two  to  embellish  his  own  story  of  the  Penitent  Harlot 
(7:  36-50;  cf.  verses  37b,  38b,  46,  with  Mark).  It  does 
not  necessarily  follow  that  Mt.  25:  1-12  was  known  to 
Luke  otherwise  than  by  oral  tradition.  In  fact,  the  omis- 
sion of  a  narrative  so  largely  dependent  for  intelligibility 
on  knowledge  of  Oriental  customs  would  not  be  strange 
in  a  gospel  which  omits  Mk.  7 :  1-24.  But  in  reality 
Lk.  12:  35-38  is  a  strict  parallel,  though  in  this  version 
of  the  parable  the  peculiarly  Oriental  features  are  subor- 
dinated. 

t  "And  the  bride"  is  an  addition  of  the  Western  text, 
which  is  at  least  necessary  to  the  sense. 


254  Appendix  C 

with  them  ;  4  but  the  prudent  took  oil  in 
their  vessels  with  their  lamps.  5  And  while 
the  bridegroom  delayed  they  all  slumbered 
and  slept.  6  But  at  midnight  there  arose  a 
cry  :  Lo,  the  bridegroom ;  come  forth  to 
meet  him.  7Then  all  those  virgins  rose  up 
and  trimmed  their  lamps.  8And  the  fool- 
ish said  to  the  prudent,  Give  us  of  your  oil, 
for  our  lamps  are  going  out.  9  But  the  pru- 
dent answered  and  said,  Nay,  lest  there  be 
not  enough  for  us  and  you  ;  go  rather  to 
the  dealers  and  buy  for  yourselves.  10And 
while  they  were  gone  to  buy,  the  bride- 
groom came ;  and  they  that  were  ready 
went  in  with  him  to  the  wedding,*  and  the 
door  was  shut.  n  Later  came  the  other 
virgins  also  and  said,  Sir,  Sir,  open  unto  us. 
12  But  he  answered  and  said,  Of  a  truth  I 
know  you  not. 

To  the  Prince  of  this  World  the  Son  of  Man 
comes  as  a  Thief:  to  Believers  as  a  Master 
to  Waiting  Sewants 

Lk.  12:  39-46  =  Mt.  24:  42-51  =  Mk.  13:  33-37 

Lk.  12  3UThis  ye  know,  that  if  the  householder 
had  known  at  what  hour  the  thief  was  com- 

*  The  additional  traits  of  I, k.  12:  37-38  seem  to  be  de- 
rived from  verses  43-44  and  Lk.  22 :  26-27 ;  c^  Mt  24 :  47. 


Appendix  C  255 

ing,  he  would  not  have  allowed  his  house 
to  be  broken  into."     4rtYou  too  should  be   «Mk.  3:27; 
prepared,    because   the    Son   of  Man   will   x     ie:,s-5-2- 
come  in  an  hour  when  you  are  not  expect- 
ing it. 

41  Peter  said  unto  him,  Sir,  are  you  speaking 
this  parable  to  us,  or  even  to  all?  42And  the 
Lord  said  :  — 

Who,  then,  is  the  faithful  and  prudent 
steward,  whom  the  master  will  set  over  his 
household  to  distribute  provisions  as  re- 
quired? 4"'That  slave  is  to  be  congratu- 
lated whom  his  master  finds  so  doing  when 
he  comes.  44 1  tell  you  of  a  truth  he  will 
set  him  over  all  his  property.  **  But  if  that 
slave  says  to  himself,  My  master  is  defer- 
ring his  coming,  and  begins  to  beat  the 
servants  and  maids,  and  to  eat  and  drink 
and  be  drunken,  4(!the  master  of  that  slave 
will  come  in  a  day  that  he  expects  him  not, 
and  an  hour  of  which  he  knows  not,  and 
will  cut  him  in  pieces,  and  appoint  him  his 
lot  with  the  unfaithful.6  b  Mt-  "  ■  n 


and  ||  ||. 


The  foregoing  seven  discourses,  which  mani- 
fest a  greater  or  less  degree  of  internal  connec- 
tion, must  suffice  to  illustrate  the  possibilities  of 
synthetic  reconstruction  of  the  greater  discourses 


256  Appendix  C 

of  the  Lord.  We  have  not  included  the  Jerusa- 
lem discourses,  though  that  on  the  Doom  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  Certainty  of  the  Speedy 
Coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  Mt.  24  =  Mk.  13  = 
Lk.  21,  commonly  called  The  Eschatological 
Discourse,  is  at  first  sight  well  adapted  to  bear 
out  the  contention  that  more  than  mere  apoph- 
thegms and  sayings  have  survived  to  us.  More- 
over the  section  Mk.  13  :  28-32  =  Mt.  24  :  32- 
36  {duplicate  Mt.  5  :  18  =  Lk.  i6:i7)  =  Lk. 
21  (22?)  :  29-33  5  Acts  1  :  7  would  seem  to  be 
the  original  source  of  the  saying  Mt.  5  :  18,  now 
embedded  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  With 
much  more  confidence  we  can  assign  the  teach- 
ing on  How  to  Discriminate  between  True  and 
False  Teachers,  also  now  incorporated  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Mt.  7  :  15-16  [20?]  = 
Lk.  6  :  44),  to  the  discourse  of  Warning  against 
the  Spirit  of  the  Scribes,  Mk.  12  :  38-40  =  Mt. 
23  :  1-10  =  Lk.  20  :  45-47.*  Mark  here  has  set 
an  unfortunate  example  of  combination  by  at- 
taching verses  3811— 39  from  the  Denunciation  of 
the  Scribes  (see  above,  p.  222),  and  Matthew 
goes   still    further   by  adding  verses  4   (=  Lk. 

*  See  Appendix  A  (10),  p.  161. 


Appendix  C  257 

11:46),  6- 7s  (=  Lk.  11:43;  Markan  form, 
Mk.  13  :  38b-39  =  Lk.  20:46),  11  (Markan 
form,  Mk.  10  :  43  =  Mt.  20  :  26-27  =  Lk.  22  :  26- 
27),  and  12  (=  Lk.  14  :  11  =  18  :  14).  In  reality 
the  Denunciation  uttered  to  the  Pharisees  and 
Scribes,  in  Galilee,  and  the  Warning  of  the 
Twelve  against  the  Spirit  of  the  Scribes,  in  Je- 
rusalem, should  be  distinguished,  as  the  Lucan 
narrative  makes  clear ;  and  it  is  with  the  latter 
that  we  would  connect  Mt.  7  :  15-16  =  Lk.  6  :  44. 
If  we  may  judge  by  the  obvious  interrelation 
of  the  Farewell  Discourse,  Jn.  15-16,  with  the 
second  Mission  of  the  Twelve.  Lk.  22:35-38, 
and  with  Mt.  10:16-33,  this  is  also  the  true 
place  for  the  two  sayings  now  incorporated  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  Lk.  6  :  40  =  Mt. 
10  :  24-25  =  Jn.  15  :  20  (13  :  16),  and  parts  of 
Mt.  5  :  14-16  (cf.  Jn.  8:12,  Mk.  4  :  21,  and  Oxy- 
rhyn.  Logia,  No.  vii).  Similarly  there  is  much 
to  indicate  that  the  teaching  on  Reconciliation 
as  better  than  Sacrifice,  Mt.  5:23,  and  the  Com- 
mand to  Forgive,  Mt.  6  :  14-15,  once  belonged 
in  the  context  of  Mt.  18:6-7,  IO>  T5-I7>  2I_ 
35,  and  the  Call  to  Unsparing  Renunciation, 
Mt.   5  :  29-30  =  Mk.   9  :  43-48  =  Mt.    18  :  S-9, 


258  Appendix  C 

and  Parable  of  the  Savourless  Salt,  Mt.  5:13  = 
Lk.  14  :  34-35  =  Mk.  9  :  50%  belong  in  that  of 
Lk.  14:28-35.* 

But  it  is  not  our  purpose  to  discover  a  setting 
for  every  fragment  included  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount ;  nor  shall  we  include  discourses  of 
the  Galilean  period  which  show  no  signs  of  con- 
nection with  these  fragments,  though  such  as  the 
Eulogy  of  the  Baptist  and  Dirge  over  the  Cities 
of  Galilee,  Mt.  11  :  1-24  =  Lk.  7  :  18-35  '>  IO  :  J3~ 
1 7,  or  the  Parabolic  Discourse  on  the  lake-shore, 
Mt.  13  :  1-52  =  Mk.  4  :  1-34  =  Lk.  8  :  1-1S,  are 
surely  more  than  mere  aggregations  of  scattered 
utterances  by  evangelic  compilers.  The  seven 
discourses  above  given  will  suffice  to  illustrate 
what  may  be  done  when  the  attempts  at  synthe- 
sis of  these  early  compilers  are  removed.  Doubt- 
less there  will  be  comparatively  little  which  will 
fully  vindicate  itself  to  the  judgment  of  our  read- 
ers as  a  whole  ;  but  a  little  in  this  direction  will 
amply  justify  the  task.  May  the  bringing  to- 
gether of  seemingly  kindred  utterances  of  the 
Lord  give  new  light  on  the  meaning  of  the  sev- 
ered parts. 

*  See  Appendix  A  (6),  p.  145. 


INDEX  TO  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES 
DISCUSSED 


Page 

Page 

Number 

Number 

Ps.      37:11 

ti6, 127, 175 

Mt.  5  :  29-30 

80,  257 

91:4 

.       225 

5:31-32 

•         89 

123:2 

.       150 

5:32 

117, 177 

Eccl.     1:12,16; 

2:1-17      7° 

5 : 33-37 

90 

Jere.    31:35-37 

136 

5:37 

•       179 

Amos    3:  10 

219 

5 : 38-42 

91 

Mt.        3 :  15 

•       135 

5:39 

•       179 

4:4 

•         42 

5 : 43-48 

92 

4 : 24-25 

65-68,  83, 

6:1-6 

•  95-97 

121, 124 

6:1-18 

39.  146 

5:1-12 

85.  125 

6:7-15 

72-73. 

146, 181- 

5:4-5 

•       175 

186 

5:5 

.       127 

6:  14-15 

148.  257 

5:13 

.       258 

6:16-18 

.        98 

5:13-16 

.       13° 

6:18 

180 

5 :  17. 19-2 

0       87,133, 

6 : 19-20 

•       154 

138 

6 : 19-34 

69-72 

148-156, 

5 : 14-16 

•       257 

186-191 

5:18-19 

6, 133-138, 

6 :  22-23 

149 

155.  231 

256 

6:24 

153.  196 

5 :  21-22 

88 

7:i-5 

99 

5 :  21-26 

.       138 

7 : 1-27 

.      156 

5 :  22-23 

•       177 

7:3-5 

.      158 

5:23 

•      257 

7:6 

159.  203 

5 :  23-26 

80, 138 

7:7-11 

160,  185 

5 :  27-28 

.        89 

7 :  12 

91, 160 

5 : 27-32 

140 
2 

7:i3"!4 
59 

240 

260 


Index 


Mt. 


Page 

Page 

Number 

Number 

7 :  13-20 

.       161 

Mt.  19 :  16-22 

II 

7 : 15-16 

•       257 

20 : 1-16 

15 

7:17    . 

.         .       165 

21 : 18-22 

.       249 

7:18    . 

100 

23:12    . 

201 

7 :  19-20 

.       166 

23 :  15-22, 24 

227-229 

7 : 21-27 

100, 166, 180 

23 :  16-22 

91,  227 

7 : 28-29 

102,  167 

23 :  27     . 

222 

8 : 1-13 

167 

23 :  34-39 

•         225 

8:2-4 

•       134 

24 :  26-27 

•         252 

8:5-10,  13 

102,  170 

24  :  37-39 

.         250 

8: 11-12 

242 

24  :  37-25  :  46 

■         171 

9 : 32-34 

•       151 

24 :  40-41 

•         25I 

10 : 16-33 

•      257 

25  :  I-I2 

•         253 

10 :  24-25 

•      257 

25 :  14-30 

193-195 

11:1-13,  I4-] 

5      •      i47 

25:31-46 

243-245 

12: 15-16 

83,  121,  124 

Mk.   1:7-8  . 

19 

12 :  22-45 

•         151 

1:15    . 

212 

12 : 22-50 

.        203 

1 :  21-28 

I72 

12 : 23-24 

2IO 

1 :  22     . 

I02 

12 :  25-32 

212-215 

1:24    . 

212 

12:33.35 

IOO,  215 

2:1-3:6 

121 

12 :  34,  36-37 

•         215 

3 : 7-14         £ 

5-68,83-84, 

12:34    . 

•         165 

121,  I23 

12 : 38-42 

232-235 

3:7-6:  12 

122 

12 : 43-45 

•         235 

3:  11-12 

212 

12 :  46-50 

.         236 

3  :  13-35 

122 

14 :  25-35 

•         145 

3 : 19-35 

122 

15 : 12-13 

230 

3:  20-21,  31- 

32       .          236 

I5:i4    • 

■        230 

3:22-30      1 

22,  I5I,  212- 

16: 1-12 

•         151 

213 

17 :  1-4  . 

•         143 

4 : 1-34 

122 

18:1-8  . 

I46 

4 :  10-25 

•          132 

18:  6-7,  10,  1 

5-17. 

4 : 11-12 

132 

21-35    • 

•        257 

4 : 21-22 

I30,  132 

18 : 6,  8-9 

I40 

4:35-5:43  • 

122 

18 :  21-35 

I48 

6:1-6. 

122 

19 : 9      • 

•      "7 

6:3       •         • 

IOI 

Index 


261 


Page 

Page 

Number 

Number 

Mk.  6:  30-7 :  31 ;  8 

34- 

Lk.    6 :  40    . 

•        257 

35  :  9  :  2- 

[o .      217 

6 : 41-42 

•          •        158 

7 : 1-23 

151.  217 

6 : 43-45 

ioo,  161-165 

7:6-13 

219 

6:44     . 

•    257 

7 : 14-23 

220 

6 : 46-49 

100, 166, 180 

7 :  32-37 ;  8 : 1- 

22, 

7:1       . 

102, 167 

27-38;  9 

1- 

7 : 1-10 

102,  167,  I70 

11:13  . 

217 

7 : 36-50 

•         253 

8 : 1-10 

•      205 

8:16    . 

130,  132 

8  :  11-21 

•      151 

11 : 1-4  . 

73 

8 :  13-21 

237-239 

11: 1-13 

181-186 

8  :  22-26       206-208,  217 

11 : 14-12:  1 

203 

9 :  33-5o       . 

•       143 

11 : 17-23; 12 

:  10  212-215 

9 :  42-49 

140,  142 

1 1 : 24-26 

•      235 

10:  IO-II 

140 

1 1 : 27-28 

•      236 

10:17-31 

11 

11 : 29-31 

•      232 

11  : 12-14, 20-25 

148, 249 

11:29-32,34- 

-36    150-153 

12:38-40 

222, 256 

n:33-36 

130, 132, 148 

13  :  28-32 

•      256 

n:37-38 

216 

14:3-9  • 

•      253 

11:39-41 

218 

Lk.    4 :  16-30 

20 

11:42  44 

222 

5:12-16 

167 

11 : 45-47 

223 

6: 12-19 

•        65 

11:48-51 

224 

6 :  17-19 

121, 124 

11 : 53-12: 1 

231 

6 :  20-23 

85, 125 

12  :  1,  10 

151 

6:  21,  22,  23,  25, 

12 : 13-34 

69-72, 155. 

26 

175-176 

186-190 

6:24-26       .    39,86,125 

12 : 35-38 

•      253 

6 :  27     . 

•        38 

12:39-46 

254-255 

6 : 27-28 

92 

12 : 47-48 

193, 196 

6 :  27-38       . 

•        78 

12 : 54-56 

246 

6:29-31 

91 

12:54-59 

80 

6 :  32-36 

92 

12:57-59        • 

138.  247 

6:35     • 

•      179  J 

13:1-5,6-9 

247-248 

6:37,38.41-42 

99. 

13  :  22-23 

■      239 

6 : 37-49 

•       156 

13 :  22-30 

•      171 

6 : 39-40 

•       158 

13  :  24     ■ 

24O 

262 


Index 


Page 

Page 

Number 

Number 

Lk.  13 :  24-27 

161-166 

Lk. 

17  : 28-30    . 

251 

13 :  25     • 

.        253 

17:34-35    • 

251 

13 :  26-27 

240-242 

17  :  37 

251 

13 :  28-30 

171,  241 

18 :  1-8       .       1 

81-186 

13:31-33 

•        245 

18 :  9-14     .       1 

99-201 

13 :  34-35 

224-225 

19:11-28    .        1 

92-195 

14 :  28-35 

.       258 

19 :  26 

195 

14 :  34-35 

.        130 

22:35-38    • 

257 

16 : 1-13 

•        155 

Jn. 

4:46-54    .        1 

02,  170 

16: 1-9,11-13 

148-153. 

6:14-15    . 

210 

186-191, 

6:  22-65,  66-71 

210 

195 

6 :  30  ff.     .        1 

51,  210 

16: 10    . 

192 

9 : 1-12      .       2 

06-207 

16 :  13     . 

•        153 

9: 1-10: 21       2 

09,  211 

16 :  14-15 

•        197 

9 :  40  ff .     .        1 

51.  159 

16 : 14-31 

•        155 

13  :  16  ;  15  :  20 

159 

16: 16-18 

.        199 

15-16. 

257 

16:17     . 

•        133 

Rom. 

7-7  ■ 

108 

16:18     . 

89,  140 

1  Coi 

.   1 :  24 ;  2 :  6-16 

225 

16 :  19-25 

I48,  200 

9:9  • 

46 

16 :  26-31 

155, 200 

13:3  • 

14 

17 : 7-10 

15 

Gal. 

6 : 1-4 

156 

17 :  20-21 

246 

Jas. 

1:25 

7 

17 :  22-24,  25 

•       252 

2  Jn. 

IO-II 

94 

17 :  26-27 

.       250 

THE    HISTORY    OF   NEW    TESTA- 
MENT TIMES  IN  PALESTINE 

By  SHAILER  MATHEWS 
Cloth,  75  cents  net ;  postage,  1 1  cents 


"  Clearness  of  style,  accuracy  of  statement,  a  scholarly 
perception,  and  more  than  romantic  interest  have  com- 
bined in  the  fashioning  of  a  very  readable  and  informing 
volume."  —  The  Baptist  Union. 

"  //  is  surprising  how  comprehensive  it  is  within  its  limits." 
—  F.  C.  Porter,  in  Amer.  Jour,  of  Theology. 

"A  most  readable  and  interesting  book.  The  history  of  the 
Jewish  people  in  Palestine  from  175  B.C.  to  70  a.d  is  told  in 
a  clear  and  picturesque  way,  and  the  reader,  whether  the 
story  be  old  or  new  to  him,  is  bound  to  follow  it  from  begin- 
ning to  end.  The  important  points  stand  out  with  due 
prominence  and  clearness,  and  the  result  is  a  total  impression 
that  is  at  once  vivid  and  accurate."  —  Biblical  World. 

"Admirably  clear."  —  Chicago  Seminary  Record. 

"  Will  undoubtedly  prove  a  valuable  help  to  Sunday-school 
teachers.  Its  statements  are  incisive  and  comprehensive. 
The  treatment  is  scholarly,  and  yet  its  pages  arc  not  weighed 
down  with  overmuch  scholastic  detail.  The  book  has  a  good 
map,  a  full  index,  helpful  genealogies,  and  abundant  footnotes 
which  direct  the  reader  to  the  best  literature  on  the  subjects 
discussed."  —  The  Unity,  Chicago. 

"  A  small  but  valuable  book."  —  Congregationalist. 
THE    MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 


AN   INTRODUCTION   TO  THE    NEW 
TESTAMENT 

By  BENJAMIN  WISNER  BACON,  Professor  of  New  Testament 

Exegesis  in  Yale  Divinity  School. 


Cloth,  J2mo,  75  cents  net;  postage,  n  cents 


"  Yields  to  no  one  of  its  predecessors  in  resources  of  scholarship  or 
skill  of  presentation.  Professor  Bacon's  thorough  conversance  with  the 
processes  and  results  of  criticism,  and  his  own  great  and  even  brilliant 
qualities  as  a  critic,  unite  to  make  his  contribution  to  the  series  a  very 
notable  one.  Indeed,  it  is  doubtful  whether  so  much  of  real  value  as 
to  New  Testament  introduction  was  ever  before  brought  within  the 
limits  of  a  volume  of  this  size."  —  The  Dial. 

"  It  is  a  compact  statement,  fairly  free  from  technicalities,  of  the 
present  state  of  critical  opinion  concerning  the  New  Testament  as  held 
by  the  more  advanced,  but  not  extreme,  class  of  scholars." 

—  The  Baptist  Standard,  Chicago. 

"  He  has  endeavored  to  set  forth  for  the  lay  reader,  in  an  easy  and 
readable  manner,  facts  familiar  to  scholars  in  the  great  treatises,  and 
results  toward  which  critical  science  is  tending —  a  difficult  task,  in  the 
narrowly  prescribed  space  allowed  by  the  limitations  of  the  editor's 
plan,  but  one  well  worth  the  doing,  and,  it  may  be  added,  well  done 
also.     The  volume  is  adapted  for  practical  as  well  as  more  special  use." 

—  Christian  Advocate. 

"  He  has  written  as  lucidly  as  the  general  reader  requires,  and  in 
the  fulness  of  scholarly  freedom,  with  remarkable  skill  in  the  conden- 
sation of  voluminous  material.  He  has  aimed  not  merely  at  stating  the 
now  accepted  results,  but  at  indicating  the  probable  results  toward 
which  sober  criticism  seems  to  him  to  be  now  tending." 

—  The  Outlook. 

THE   MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 


THE    BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  OF    THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT 


By   EZRA   P.   GOULD,   Author   of  "A    Critical  and  Exegetical 
Commentary  of  the   Gospel  of  Mark  " 

Cloth,  J2mo,  75  cents  net ;  postage,  n  cents 


"  Professor  Gould  has  aimed  to  apply  rigidly  the  methods  of  the 
higher  criticism  to  the  examination  of  the  theology  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. In  point  of  conciseness  and  clearness  of  style,  nothing  but 
praise  can  be  given  to  his  work.  To  pack  so  much  matter  into 
so  small  a  volume  is  a  feat  which  shows  no  little  mastery  of  thought  as 
well  as  of  good  English.  It  is  a  distinctly  valuable  contribution  to  its 
subject."  —  Evening  Post,  Chicago. 

"Fresh  and  stimulating"  —  Methodist  Review. 

"  Of  unusual  interest.  Apart  from  the  work  of  Professor  Stevens 
it  is  practically  the  only  book  in  English  covering  the  entire  field  of 
New  Testament  theology.  Professor  Gould  writes  in  the  utmost  sym- 
pathy with  modern  thought,  and  is  especially  interested  in  the  relations 
of  the  different  phases  of  New  Testament  thinking.  .  .  .  Not  the  least 
important  feature  of  the  book  is  the  untechnical  style  in  which  it  is 
written."  —  Evening  Transcript,  Boston. 

"Compact,  but  very  clear.'1''  —  Reformed  Church  Review. 

"Throughout  the  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  spiritual  and  ethical 
interpretation  of  Christ's  teachings  as  opposed  to  the  literal  and 
materialistic  conception  of  them.  It  should  be  especially  useful  to 
Sunday-school  teachers."  —  Pioneer  Press,  St.  Paul. 

"  Brief  but  significant"  —  The  Outlook. 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE.   NEW  YORK 


BS2418.4.B12 

The  Sermon  on  the  mount :  its  literary 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1012  00081   5144 


